Sitting of 1 July 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to issue the consultative document on the reorganisation of secondary schools in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): It is hoped to publish the consultative document before the end of this month. The document is concerned with suggestions for the elimination of 11-plus selection procedure for admission to grammar schools and the reorganisation of secondary education on non-selective lines. It will include the feasibility study carried out by the Senior Chief Inspector of the Northern Ireland Department of Education. The section of this study dealing with individual schools is illustrative of the application of the principles proposed for discussion and has not been agreed to by area education and library boards. Sections will also be included dealing with possible accompanying changes in the legislative, financial and administrative arrangements.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome that reply? Will he tell the House what period will be
    626
    available for consultation on these important matters? Can he confirm that no additional financial burden will be placed on voluntary schools as a result?
    Mr. Moyle: There will be no additional financial burden placed on voluntary schools if that is what they wish. I hope that there will be a vigorous public debate in Northern Ireland on the matter. I do not want to restrict it, but I hope to make progress. Shall we say six months, and then see how it goes?
    Mr. Powell: In view of the importance of the subject and its special application to the circumstances of Northern Ireland, would not any legislative proceedings be appropriately by Bill and not by Order?
    Mr. Moyle: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The question of legislation will not arise for about 18 months.
    Mr. McCusker: Irrespective of that reply, will the Minister assure us that he will not change the system simply for the sake of change but will first satisfy himself that he is replacing it with something better?
    Mr. Moyle: I can give that assurance.

    Provisional Sinn Fein
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the discussions held by his Department with the Provisional Sinn Fein.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 13th April, my officials will talk with any lawful organisation in Northern Ireland, although no negotiations have taken place or will take place. I am not prepared to give details of meetings with individual organisations.
    Mr. Gow: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continued discussions between his Department and the political spokesmen of the IRA are profoundly damaging and dangerous to the cause which he shares with hon. Members on this side of the House—namely, the rule of law and the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the policy that he is following of discussion with Sinn Fein is very damaging

    627
    indeed to the morale of the security forces in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. The whole feeling of republicanism that exists in Northern Ireland marks it out as different. I thought I was right 18 months ago to take advantage of the opportunity of trying to break the log jam that had built up over the previous seven years. I would have been wrong not to attempt something then. If that is again necessary in the future, I shall do it.
    Mr. Neave: What was the last occasion on which these talks took place? Is the Secretary of State aware that the talks are very unpopular in Dublin? Is it not clear that members of Provisional Sinn Fein are the spokesmen for an illegal organisation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with those in Northern Ireland who say that talks with men whose only voice is a Thompson sub-machine gun or an Armelite rifle are entirely futile?
    Mr. Rees: My officials do not meet with people like that. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is logical, but it shows no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland or of the large number of people with republican leanings. The matter cannot be left alone. If the question arises, we shall do the same again. I am not prepared to give the dates when the talks last took place. I insist that if it is necessary it will happen again.

    Community Relations
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what indications there are of sections of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland coming together in the interests of peace; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Nigel Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any statement to make about the resumption of talks between party leaders in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: It would not be right for me to comment on the various exchanges taking place among the political parties in Northern Ireland, still
    628
    less for me to seek to interfere. The Government welcome the constructive efforts of those in Northern Ireland who seek an equitable and durable agreement.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that we understand the efforts which he has been making to promote peace in Northern Ireland through every possible human contact? Will he further accept that, despite the increases this year in sectarian killings, there is a feeling that the two communities are reaching out towards each other and that those who indulge in sectarianism are increasingly being isolated? Does he agree that that is a reasonable assessment of the situation?
    Mr. Rees: That is a reasonable assessment. I must not hide from the House my concern about the nature of the violence. Much of it has been straight sectarian in nature. Many people whom I meet tell me of the isolation of the men of violence, but that does not prevent them from engaging in violence. We must remember, however, that there have been false dawns before, and false dawns that suddenly collapse lead to disillusion. Let us take the matter carefully. There is a spirit there. I hope that anything we can do in the House will foster it.
    Sir N. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the apparent alignment of the official Unionists with the constructive approach by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), as opposed to the totally negative reaction of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), might well lead to the resumption of devolved government in Ulster based on principles supported by all parties in the House?
    Mr. Rees: It certainly might do that, but the operative word is "might". Praise from me for any individual politician is not very productive, and even doing the opposite of praising, however much I might like to do that, might also prove to be unproductive. That is why at the moment I say very little about what is going on in Northern Ireland in this respect.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the work and efforts of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland to encourage and enable the two communities to work sensibly together

    629
    in the sphere of the trade unions? Are not the trade unions doing work which others in the political sphere would do well to emulate?
    Mr. Rees: Yes, I think that is right. I met the trade unions only this week. This is no new attempt on the part of trade unions. Northern Ireland Ministers in previous Governments praised the trade unions in Northern Ireland, and all I can do is to add to that.
    The basic problem is that, although on the political and industrial levels many people are reasonable, there is beneath a basic gut feeling on both sides. Only the slow work of political life by those who are not involved in violence, and by the trade unions, will eventually lead to removing or isolating gut reactions which are a legacy of history.
    Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever has been the case in the past, the background to the present violence is not the absence of co-operation or the presence of hostility between adherents of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism but the activities of small numbers of people who are irreconcilably opposed to any acceptable form of government in the Republic or in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: I do not disagree at all with the right hon. Gentleman's last comment. Things have changed in the past seven years. I am not so sure about the other aspects of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Although the vast majority of the people are firmly against violence, what concerns me is the tacit acceptance of violence in some areas, particularly in the urban areas. How to overcome this is an extremely difficult question. On the main point, however, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of detention was a material factor in improving relationships between the two communities, and that the primacy which he attaches to the rule of law could lead to an improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland? Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on an article in The Times this morning about increasing the liaison between the Army and the police to bring criminals before the courts?
    Mr. Rees: I hope tomorrow to say something about the article in the newspaper, following up what I said a fortnight ago. I regard that as the right direction to take. In the past seven years the Army has taken the lead in security in Northern Ireland. I want to see that arrangement gradually—no more than that—reversed. That is the right way to go. The ending of detention was right and important. What concerns me in Northern Ireland is the existence of a small number of people on either side who organise the violence but do not go out on the street and pull the trigger. Those are the ones we want to get at. To get at them we need evidence. That is the long-term view. In the short-term, however, when I see the results of the activities of those organisers I wish that we could get at them much more quickly.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more positive steps could be taken to involve the trade union movement in Northern Ireland? What steps is he prepared to take to bring together the British TUC and the Irish TUC on this question?
    Mr. Rees: I have already agreed that the work that is being done by the trade unions is first-rate, but I would not attempt to instruct the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and its Northern Ireland Committee and tell them what to do. The links between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the South in Dublin and the TUC in London are very good. Mr. Jack Jones was in Ireland last week speaking at the annual conference of the Transport and General Workers' Union. What he said there could not be bettered. That shows that the valued support that the Government and the country get from the British trade union movement on the Irish question is first-rate.

    Land Drainage
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will cause to be drawn up a scheme for Northern Ireland indicating the size and location of areas reclaimable or improvable by land drainage and the phases in which, and the assumptions upon which, the corresponding works are expected to be executed.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir. Since 1947 the Northern Ireland Department of

    631
    Agriculture has been carrying out a Province-wide programme of river drainage, which is now about three-quarters complete. The initiative in field drainage rests with the farmers and other landowners.
    Mr. Powell: Notwithstanding that record, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be valuable, particularly for the purposes of securing more public interest and understanding, if a long-term view were presented of the potentialities and the methods of agricultural land drainage in the Province as a whole?
    Mr. Rees: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a presentational case should be made to explain what is to be done and to show the community what needs to be done. I shall certainly consider that suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with me about it or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible. There is a great deal of leeway to make up. Much of what has happened in Northern Ireland is linked with names. On this side of the water, land drainage was started by Sir Robert Peel in the early 1840s. That did not happen in Northern Ireland, which is curious in view of Sir Robert Peel's involvement with Northern Ireland. Temporary and long-term measures need to be taken. If the right hon. Gentleman will have a word with us about any particular issue he has in mind, at the top end of the Laggan Valley or in the upper reaches of the Bann, we shall do what we can. I must stick to the plan that is being followed.
    Mr. Farr: In considering these plans, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that EEC money is available for these schemes? Will he make sure that an application is made to the EEC for consideration?
    Mr. Rees: If any money is available, I am after it.

    Ceasefire
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Provisional IRA has announced the end of the ceasefire; how many persons are known to have been killed by the Provisional IRA during the period of the
    632
    ceasefire; and how many during the 18 months previous to its announcement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have not heard of any announcement by the Provisional IRA purporting to end the ceasefire which it announced unilaterally on 10th February 1975. Since that date it has admitted responsibility for 23 deaths in Northern Ireland. Comparable figures are not available for the earlier period. The exact number it has killed must be a matter for speculation, but it is certainly more than the admitted figure.
    Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the ceasefire was announced he said that he would require a sustained and genuine cessation of violence before he would release all the detainees? In view of the level of violence since then, does he think that that criterion was met?
    Mr. Rees: Certainly the criterion was not met in the context of the ceasefire, but my decision to end detention was not taken eventually in the context of the ceasefire, because it did not materialise with the Provisional IRA. I have been looking carefully at the figures and I find that in 1972, when internment was introduced, violence escalated to the nth degree. That is not to say that I did not realise that with the ending of detention we might be in a difficult position. There is no doubt in my mind that the ending of detention was the right way forward in the circumstances of the time. I can only say again that one must look at the figures. Detention did not end the violence. It stimulated it.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the practice of describing the victims of brutality as either Catholic or Protestant is deplorable? Would it not be more helpful if they were described as Christians, as apparently they are all members of one religious organisation?
    Mr. Rees: When I see what is done, and whatever is the label that is given, I find the latter description more than I can bear. The Chief Constable, as he has every right to do, has decided that the nomenclature of victims, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, should be ended. What he would understand, and what he does understand, is that in many parts of Belfast, or in Northern Ireland

    633
    as a whole, everyone knows the nomenclature whether or not one says it. However, I accept his advice. I believe that it is a sensible thing to try because it may offer some help. Knowing so many people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, my opinion is that to give religious descriptions to them, whatever may be their origins, belies the views of those who carry out the murdering and killing in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Neave: As more than 150 people have been killed this year, is it not thoroughly nebulous and misleading for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about a Provisional IRA ceasefire being in existence? There is no such thing as a ceasefire.
    Mr. Rees: If I had said that, I should have been extremely foolish. If anyone believed I said that, he would be wrong.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many of us on the Labour Benches at least are not happy about the sectarian nature of those who want to list the melancholy parade of killings from one side to the other? Many of us think that killings occur on both sides, and we are condemnatory of them. To list them purely on one side is most unhelpful. Those who do that should make better efforts to try to bring the two sides together.
    Mr. Rees: As regards the killings and murders and all that goes on in Northern Ireland, and taking the generality of my hon. Friend's question, I think it is right that we should condemn them. But there can be no justification in any sense of the term for what my hon. Friend has described. There was a time when that was done. I believe it is disappearing in Northern Ireland, as it certainly has done in this House. Condemnation, and not even the slightest degree of justification, should be the order of the day.

    Fugitives (Apprehension)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on a scheme to establish the mutual secondment of RUC and Garda officers to assist in the apprehension of fugitives in border areas.
    Mr. Moyle: This is in the first place a matter for the Chief Constable and the Chief Commissioner of the Garda.
    Mr. Farr: I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, which was negative in the extreme. This is the sort of initiative that the Government should be considering. If attempts were made to establish consultation on these lines, possibly a real impact could be made on cross-border security and co-operation between the security forces. It is not good enough for the Minister to answer in such a negative manner. I ask him to look at the matter again.
    Mr. Moyle: I should have no objection in principle to this taking place, provided that it was acceptable to the two police forces and provided that the practical problems could be solved. The operation of the police force on the other side of the border, for example, would be limited to some extent, because the difference in the law between the Republic and Northern Ireland is sufficiently wide to render an easy transfer not a simple matter.
    Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even if he cannot achieve what would be a welcome initiative of this sort, there is much scope for the sort of cooperation that would enable the best use to be made of manpower on the border so that the maximum number of crossing points can be policed? Does he agree that rather than having security forces on both sides of the border, policing, for example, a single crossing point, each force on its own side, it would be desirable if the forces could be deployed through cooperation at a number of different points? In that way a lot could be achieved.
    Mr. Moyle: Broadly speaking, that sort of thing is already done. Co-operation between the two forces is growing all the time.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we welcome and have supported what he has said about increased co-operation between the two forces? However, when talking about secondment between forces of two sovereign States, clearly that cannot be done. It could be done between Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police, but that is not a parallel.
    Mr. Moyle: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I pointed out that the RUC will make a substantial attempt to achieve the sort of liaison and exchange that we are talking about, but I am sure there are a number of practical problems that will have to be solved before it can be put into practice.

    Security
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I told the House on 14th June, although some of the violence, like sectarian crime, remains the same, the security situation is constantly changing; for example, there are now fewer street disturbances but more uncoordinated and individual crimes. Recently, terrorists have made a number of attacks which seem designed primarily to destroying places providing employment. The security forces are taking all appropriate measures to bring those responsible to court; so far this year 583 persons have been charged with terrorist crime, including 50 with murder.
    Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give clear and precise directives to both police and military as to their long-term roles in Northern Ireland? Secondly, what are his plans to improve liaison between police and military, which in several areas is lamentably weak? Is it the plan of the Government to re-equip the RUC with any more armoured personnel carriers?
    Mr. Rees: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, in certain places this is necessary and is being done. I think that "long-term directives" are the words that have been used. The long-term policy has been reassessed, and I have now received the report of the ministerial committee, of which I happen to be Chairman, which has been considering the long-term future. That must be flexible. In 1969 no one would have believed the extent of the violence that would be experienced some years later. I propose to say something tomorrow about liaison between the police force and the Army, but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of points at where it is weak at the moment, and if he will give me chapter and verse, I shall put
    636
    the matter to the RUC, the Chief Constable and the General. All I can say is that they have not put it to me this week.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend give a current assessment of the flow of money and arms from the United States and Canada?
    Mr. Rees: Assessments are being made. Most of the money that comes from North America is in the provision of foreign exchange for the purchase of arms in different parts of the world. The rest of the money is raised by bank robberies North and South, and post office robberies. They are the major source of funds. However, the important funds still come, although to a lesser degree, I understand, from North America. The people who provide that money, who believe they are doing good, should see the results of the money that they have provided. They would then realise that they are being fooled when they are asked for the money.
    Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent attacks on the homes and lives of prominent business men represent a sinister development? Does intelligence indicate whether it is part of an overall plan?
    Mr. Rees: I often find—and certainly on advice on these matters—that something happens for a while that has obviously been ordered by somebody, but it does not often carry on for a long period. It seems to wax and wane over a period of weeks. Those who provided a list of 250 business men in Northern Ireland, with their home addresses, were providing a death list. I understand that those concerned have apologised. If I were in the families of those who have been attacked, apologies would not be enough.
    Mr. Fernyhough: My right hon. Friend said that some of the money for these purposes came from raids on post offices and factories. Will he give an idea of the total number of banks and post offices within the territory and, secondly, the manpower that would be involved in providing a 24-hour guard upon them?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot give my right hon. Friend the numbers without notice. Obviously, if the Army or police were to

    637
    be involved in guarding buildings on a roster basis, it would take up the services of a large number of people. The situation is difficult in that respect.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the Secretary of State yet able to announce any decision about expanding the number of full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
    Mr. Rees: I propose to say something on that topic in tomorrow's debate. Let me simply say that we attach importance to the expansion of the regular element of the UDR.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What new confidence in the forces of law and order can be given to the terrorised, and particularly the law-abiding of nationalist tradition, when the Secretary of State continues to insist on parleys with the political commissars of the Provos?
    Mr. Rees: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about these matters, but his concern comes from afar.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: From afar?
    Mr. Rees: It is not something that looms in Northern Ireland.

    Direct Rule
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what respects he has made the present system of direct rule more positive than that in force in previous periods of direct rule; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: During direct rule, successive Governments have rightly hesitated to take action on non-urgent matters on which a future devolved Government could be expected to make its own decisions. But there has been direct rule for all but five months of the last four years, and I have decided that it would no longer be right to defer decisions in this way.
    In recent months the Government have instituted searching reviews on security, economics and social policies in Northern Ireland, the results of which will enable me to decide whether any fresh initiatives should be taken.
    I have also been reviewing the machinery of direct rule in regard to such matters as parliamentary procedures and the handling of legislation for Northern
    638
    Ireland. I shall have something to say on this in the course of the debate tomorrow.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that we eagerly await his contribution to tomorrow's debate? Meanwhile, will he and the Northern Ireland office endeavour to help community groups which are doing such good work in Northern Ireland in bringing people together by providing some kind of interim representation of ordinary people in the Province?
    Mr. Rees: I shall do a great deal, through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to help community groups, but not in any sense of their being representative as if they were elected. It is most important to stick to that view. There is one other factor to be considered. There are community groups and community groups in Northern Ireland, as the people who live there know. My colleagues have to be selective in the attitude that is taken in that respect. I shall tomorrow give my views to the House on aspects of direct rule, but I should not like to give the impression that there is something new and urgent in dealing with this basic problem. I feel that all along there has been too much said in this House in the last five years about solving the Irish question instead of seeking to deal with the immediate situation and to cope with the situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hardy: I welcome the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pace of his actions must be such that Northern Ireland opinion must not be isolated, because progress will be determined by Northern Ireland opinion and not by any degree of impatience at Westminster?
    Mr. Rees: I agree firmly with my hon. Friend. Our aim must be to use the developing mood of the people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, this is what Her Majesty's Government will do.
    Mr. Mates: On the general question of future direct rule, many of us broadly agree with the profile taken by the Secretary of State in regard to talks between the parties, but is he aware that much

    639
    will depend on his attitude to the outcome of talks? Could he, either tomorrow in the debate or in his replies today, give an assurance to the people who are spending so much time trying to negotiate delicately that he will look favourably on any scheme that is agreed by Ulstermen among themselves?
    Mr. Rees: Of course, I shall look favourably on any agreement that may come forward between the two major groups in Northern Ireland, and I shall say something about that aspect of the matter tomorrow. Any agreement that is reached will depend on the supposition that people are prepared to work together. The details must be examined searchingly, but I hope that the basic factors of agreement will be successful.

    Police (Armament and Equipment Supplies)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what items of police armament and equipment requisitions are outstanding; and when it is expected that these will be fulfilled.
    Mr. Moyle: In the first place this is a matter for the Chief Constable and the police authority. A considerable amount of equipment is ordered each year for the RUC, and it would be impracticable to list all the items that are currently being dealt with as part of the continuing programme. If there is a particular case the hon. Member has in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister encourage the newly-constituted Police Authority to make speedily available the very best and most up-to-date equipment that may be requested by the RUC to enable it to cope with the speedily changing tactics of the terrorist organisations?
    Mr. Moyle: Yes, I shall.
    Mr. Dalyell: Have any appreciable quantities of arms fallen into unauthorised hands?
    Mr. Moyle: There has been little traffic in that respect.
    Mr. McCusker: I accept that the responsibility is that of the Chief Constable, but will the Minister satisfy himself that the equipment used by the
    640
    special patrol group in South Armagh is adequate?
    Mr. Moyle: I have met members of the special patrol groups in South Armagh—it was a slightly unorthodox visit, and I do not intend to repeat it too often—and heard complaints about weapons. All the points they made are being processed through the machinery.

    Car Hijackings (Compensation)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the criterion for compensation for a hijacked car used as a car bomb.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Compensation in respect of a hijacked car used as a car bomb may be claimed under the Criminal Injuries to Property (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. The criteria governing the payment of compensation in such a case are the same as for any other criminal damage.
    The main criteria are that the aggregate amount of damage must exceed £20 and that the damage sustained must have been caused by members of an unlawful association or in a riotous situation.
    Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents whose car was used for a car bomb in Portadown three years ago, as a result of which the offenders were given sentences of imprisonment of eight years, has not yet been recompensed for the loss of his vehicle? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Criminal Injuries Board will speed up the payment of compensation?
    Mr. Concannon: I shall examine that matter. If the hon. Gentleman examines this subject, he will find that any lack of speed in paying out compensation is often not a matter for my Department but lies elsewhere.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: How does the Minister discover whether an organisation is lawful or unlawful in deciding whether to pay compensation when, by definition, the identity of those concerned is not known?
    Mr. Concannon: The Chief Constable has to issue a certificate in this respect.

    Fair Employment Agency
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to announce the names of the remaining members of the Fair Employment Agency.
    Mr. Moyle: Shortly after the current consultations are completed.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister understand that he will not be denied plenty of time for consultation in regard to these important appointments, because this group of persons has important work to do? Does he not regard it as marginally encouraging that there were those in this House who previously bitterly opposed the fair employment legislation but who on Third Reading decided not to oppose it, undoubtedly because they realised that their bigoted approach was not readily supported?
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We look forward to a successful period of work for the Fair Employment Agency supported by all sections of the Northern Irish community. I take the point about careful consultations in regard to agency membership before the names are announced. I am sure that we shall get some good people to serve on it.
    Mr. McCusker: Taking account of the principle of the Bill, will the Minister of State ensure that there is equality of opportunity for everyone who seeks to serve on this body?
    Mr. Moyle: We have done our best to ensure that.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Minister agree that, while my hon. Friends and I maintain our objections to this attempt to deal with these problems by legislation, nevertheless we co-operated to a considerable degree and successfully improved the legislation? That is something which can hardly be said about the official Opposition.
    Mr. Moyle: As I have already said, the right hon. Gentleman is carrying on an argument with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), and I have no intention of acting as umpire. I am grateful for the good offices of
    642
    the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and the co-operation which they gave eventually.

    Handicapped Persons (Holidays)
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a holiday centre for physically handicapped people who require medical supervision presently unavailable in existing welfare holiday schemes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): Health and social services boards may arrange holidays or short-stay accommodation for physically handicapped people in a variety of residential settings or in hospital, according to the needs of the person concerned and his family.
    Mr. Bradford: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that medical supervision of a specialised kind is not available at many of these centres? Will he also accept that the area boards in Northern Ireland are enthusiastic about such a scheme which would involve medical supervision? Does he appreciate that as £1·5 million has been made available to some community associations, some of which operate in a very doubtful rôle in Northern Ireland, money cannot be the excuse for cutting off this worthy cause from the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Dunn: The existing arrangements meet the majority of the needs. I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but he must be aware that consultations are taking place about the extension of services to the handicapped. It would be very expensive to provide the special medical care that the hon. Gentleman requires throughout all the centres, and I hope that he appreciates this fact. I am aware of one particular case in which he has shown great interest. Therefore, it is right that I should inform him that the allocation of accommodation has been made to that particular patient.
    Sir David Renton: In giving further thought to this matter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the needs of the mentally handicapped as well as the needs of the physically handicapped?
    Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir.

    Injury and Damage (Compensation)
    Mr. Weetchasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid in compensation for injury and damage to property since 1968 to date; and how much is outstanding.
    Mr. Concannon: The amount paid under the Criminal Injuries Acts (Northern Ireland) 1956–71 in respect of damage to property since current records were started in 1969 to 31st May 1976 is £154,006,028. The estimated value of claims outstanding is currently under review, and I shall write to my hon. Friend when the figures are available.
    Mr. Weetch: These are very substantial amounts of money. Can my hon. Friend tell me who was responsible for paying these sums of money before the present arrangements were made? Can he also say under which existing legislation these amounts are paid at present?
    Mr. Concannon: Prior to this matter becoming the responsibility of the United Kingdom taxpayer, there were two different arrangements. In 1957 the responsibility lay with the ratepayers of the council areas in Northern Ireland. Latterly, when it became expensive it was done on a fifty-fifty basis between them and Stormont. Since 1971, of course, it has been the responsibility of the United Kingdom taxpayer. All this legislation was passed in the old Stormont.

    Bread
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether lie has received the report of the inquiry into the Northern Ireland bread industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moyle: The working party on bread costs and prices in Northern Ireland has made recommendations for improving the financial viability of the baking industry and for bringing the price of bread in the Province more closely into line with prices charged over most of the United Kingdom. Copies of the report by the consultant to the working party, Professor Gibson, have been placed in the Library.
    In order to give the industry time to implement these recommendations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has
    644
    agreed to extend, for a strictly limited period, the special relaxation of the Price Code which applies to bakeries in Northern Ireland. I shall be maintaining close contact with the industry with a view to encouraging early progress toward rationalisation.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that bread is so much higher in price in Northern Ireland is extremely disturbing? Would he agree that the dispensation given by his right hon. Friend will not encourage the industry to modernise itself to the advantage of citizens in the Province?
    Mr. Moyle: The price of bread in Northern Ireland is high, and it is our intention to bring it into line with the price in the rest of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend is anxious to help to ensure that no redundancies are created in a period of high unemployment, but the danger is that the industry might sit back and not take advantage of the period it has been allowed for reorganisation. I shall be very vigilant to ensure that the industry modernises in the course of the next few months. I see no prospects of the penny being extended beyond the end of this year.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and CBI.
    Mr. Gowasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the General Council of the TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.
    Mr. Lawson: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC and the CBI will he give an assurance that the massive public expenditure cuts for next year which are now well advanced in their preparation will be announced and debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess? And will he this time answer the question I have put instead of, as last Tuesday,

    645
    answering a totally different question which he seemed to get from some scrap of paper?
    The Prime Minister: I answered the Question the hon. Gentleman has put today last Tuesday.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would tell me and the TUC which element of the investment relief monitoring device which was announced yesterday will be used in cases where firms apply to put up their prices and at the same time employ non-union labour. How will he explain to the TUC General Council why these cheapskate firms can put up their prices and retain non-union labour while at the same time cuts of £1,000 million or more in public expenditure will mean that trade union labour finishes up in the dole queue?
    The Prime Minister: It has always been my view that those employed, whether in private industry or in public service, should belong to a trade union. They escape their obligations if they do not join.
    This is a consultative document which is being published, and the TUC—or any other organisation—may make representations about it. In my view, however, it would not be particularly useful at this stage in the investment cycle to pursue this point. I hope that everyone in industry will join the appropriate trade union.
    Mr. Gow: Has the Prime Minister read the document "Social Contract 1976–77" in which the TUC states that it is opposed vigorously to any further cuts in public expenditure? Despite the misuse of the word "further", will the Prime Minister confirm that he will make whatever cuts in public expenditure he and the Government believe are justified, whatever the views of the TUC?
    The Prime Minister: There is a certain Pavlovian attitude among Conservative Members on this matter. This public expenditure matter is one of a whole series of factors in the Government's economic policies, some of which are being carried forward with great success and others without success. We shall try to get a combination of all factors in appropriate proportions in due time.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st July 1976.
    The Prime Minister: I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning, and I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen this evening. Apart from my duties in this House and some meetings with hon. Members, I shall also attend a reception being held in honour of the retiring Staff Side Secretary of the National Whitley Council.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is a pity that he did not find time to attend some event celebrating Free Enterprise Day? Is the fact that in his 12 weeks as Prime Minister the pound is down 9 cents the factor that makes him write in the latest White Paper published yesterday that it is
    "no good paying ourselves in confetti"?
    The Prime Minister: If it is Free Enterprise Day, I think that free enterprise had better do a little more advertising, because, I regret to say, I was not aware of it. As for the strength of sterling, I draw attention to what was said in the Bundestag yesterday:
    "The encouraging progress in Britain on the way to a new social consensus between Government, trade unions and employers, which was noted with applause in Puerto Rico, justifies the signs of increased confidence in the British Pound".
    What a pity that has to come from the German Chancellor and not from the Opposition.
    Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister finds himself with a spare 10 minutes in a busy day, will he take the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by the arm and go outside to buy an ice cream cone or a soft drink? They will both then see what visitors to this country and local residents are having to pay for these products in the heat wave.
    The Prime Minister: I have not pursued my inquiries that far, but if the hon. Member would like to help me, I will go with him to do so.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Since this is not only Free Enterprise Day but, we understand,

    647
    Free Enterprise Week, will my right hon. Friend have published in Hansard the number of applications received by the various Government Departments this week for aid so that we may see just how free that enterprise is?
    The Prime Minister: I think that would be a work of supererogation. But I believe that there is a clear case for private enterprise standing on its own feet and making an adequate profit. It is important, however, for the Opposition to remember that a great deal of so-called free enterprise is coming to the State for continuing aid because of the impossibility of sustaining itself or, because of the size of its enterprise, of raising sufficient capital in other directions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister will presumably have seen the Secretary of State for Industry this morning and as that right hon. Gentleman has agreed that nationalisation of shipbuilding will involve some closure of shipyards and some redundancies, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement reached between the Government and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists on Tuesday night involved any change in the distribution of jobs or redundancies between shipyards?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is a little out of date. I went to Largs in Scotland the week before Whit-sun when I was invited to address the annual conference of the Boilermakers Society. It represents a very important element in Scottish shipbuilding. I said there that the shipbuilding industry would need to be contracted. There was therefore no doubt in the mind of any Scottish nationalist or anyone else of what I had said in Scotland or of what the position is.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has ignored the pith of the question. Did the agreement involve any change in the pattern of redundancies or jobs in shipyards?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question—
    Mr. Burden: Open government!
    The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to be batted between the Scottish nationalists and the Tory Party's hatred
    648
    of them. As far as I know—and I do not have the Conservative Party's briefing this week and am, therefore, at a disadvantage—the only undertaking that was given was that made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he wound up the debate. The Scottish nationalists found it convincing, much to the disappointment of the Conservatives, who must learn to bear these things with fortitude.
    Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend is extolling free enterprise, will he remind the Conservatives that many, if not the majority, of the difficulties of British industry are due to the lack of investment because Conservative supporters will not invest in their much vaunted British industry, but invest in foreign industry instead? Will he ask them once again to put money into British industry?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that as a result of the consultative document on the Price Code published yesterday and the very strict arrangements being made for monitoring prices, but in the light of the concessions which have been made, industries will invest more in order to create new jobs. Overseas investment is a complicated matter. Frequently a continuing investment overseas has to be made in order to maintain plant and machinery from profits which are not remitted to this country. But, having put that point, I do not take the view that there is no unnecessary overseas investment. Companies should review their overseas policies to see whether it is necessary to invest in those activities to maintain their share in overseas markets.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Third Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has yet to be faced? Is he aware that the Scottish National Party expects the creation of a Scottish division autonomous beneath the Scottish Development Agency as a firm commitment from the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will not expect me to go any further than my right hon. Friend the Lord President. These will be matters for discussion during the remaining stages of the Bill when I am sure that we shall have a series of short, sharp and informative debates, as we had on the Education Bill yesterday.

PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)
Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a transcript of his interview on ITN News on 15th June on the state of the nation.
Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of the text of the interview which he gave on "News at Ten" on Independent Television on 15th June.
The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th June.
Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will welcome his remarks in that speech about people having to solve or not solve their own problems? Does he not recognise, however, that a pre-requisite of that situation is that workers, savers and entrepreneurs should be able to work within a taxation system that offers them some incentive?
The Prime Minister: I think that the taxation system must offer incentives, but the Conservatives frequently do not give the correct picture of the levels of British taxation by comparison with other countries. A more detailed and careful scrutiny will show that general taxation in this country is not out of line with that in others.
Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first priority is to get people to work so that they can pay tax? Will he go out of his way in his current discussions to encourage the investment we need in British manufacturing industry?
The Prime Minister: I hope that at the meeting of the NEDC at which I shall be taking the chair next Wednesday I shall have further discussions with both sides of industry about this matter. Lord Watkinson has already said that the price increases are not sufficient, but he has given general encouragement to his members to make more investment in order to create more jobs.
Mr. Latham: Is the Prime Minister aware that while he replied earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) he did not answer him on the subject of public expenditure? Since
650
the television broadcast dealt specifically with public expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that massive cuts are being prepared in Whitehall?
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave 10 minutes earlier to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
Mr. Pavitt: Following what my right hon. Friend said about people solving their own problems, will he refer to the central price review body the question of cutting private expenditure as a possible way of making up the investment gap? Does he recall that last year we spent £22,790 million publicly, but more than three times as much privately? Might it not be possible to solve our problems by cutting expenditure in the private as well as in the public sector?
The Prime Minister: The level of consumption in the private sector has been falling and the standard of life of our people has not been increasing, at any rate in terms of private consumption, though their social wage has been increasing. I do not think that this would be the right moment to cut people's standard of life in terms of private consumption any further.

CABINET DOCUMENTS (DISCLOSURE)
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the disclosure of information in Cabinet papers to the author of the article in the magazine New Society about the child benefit scheme. I apologise for the fact that it will be rather long.
I should first inform the House of the result of the investigation carried out by Sir Douglas Allen and I shall outline the further action that is being taken.
Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry has been very thorough. It has included interviews with Ministers and with all political advisers who had access. All civil servants who had access, including those concerned solely with the custody and handling of the relevant material, have also been interviewed. Sir Douglas Allen has also followed up all the suggestions and leads put to him by those who have been interviewed and most of

651
those that have appeared in the Press. He also interviewed Mr. Frank Field, the author of the article, who refused to disclose the source of his information.
As I informed the House earlier, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the quotations in the New Society article. The manner of the disclosure is, however, more doubtful. Thus, while some of the quotations are accurate, others contain minor textual errors. The article was also wrong in saying that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on 4th May. Sir Douglas Allen considers that the likely explanation is that the author of the article did not possess a copy of the papers from which he quoted, but that someone who had access to them made extensive and possibly rapid notes from them which were subsequently handed over.
Sir Douglas Allen concentrated his inquiry on those who had access to the Limited Circulation Annex recording the discussion which the Cabinet had on 6th May. This record falls into a category of documents which is given a restricted circulation, and very strict rules exist for their handling. Departments are not permitted to copy them, in whole or in part. They are not to be sent to individuals in a Department but must be read, on a strict "need to know" basis, only in the Private Office concerned.
In the case of this particular Limited Circulation Annex, 34 copies were issued, and it was hoped that by concentrating the investigation on it, the scope of the inquiry could be focused on a relatively few people.
Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry revealed, however, that the strict procedures for handling this document were not fully observed by all Departments. Three Departments copied it and in others the original document was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. This failure to observe the rules regrettably made the task of identifying the sources of the disclosure more difficult by increasing the range of access and thus the number of people involved.
However, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that this failure to observe the proper procedures was in itself responsible for the disclosure.
652
I have to inform the House that, despite his very thorough inquiries, Sir Douglas Allen has been unable to discover the source of this leak.
The problem of leaks is by no means new and it would be misleading to pretend otherwise. They have taken place for many years. They are part of the enduring relationship between Governments and the Press, in the course of which the interests of the two parties will sometimes be different.
What was disturbing about the disclosure to the author of the New Society article was that it involved the unauthorised passing over of extracts from the papers of the Cabinet itself, which the recipients had formally undertaken not to do. This is an abuse of trust which cannot be in the public interest, and it is in a different order of gravity from some of the stories and allegations which have been made about the disclosure of some relatively innocuous documents.
The House will recall that I invited whoever was responsible to come forward to say so. He or she has not done this, with the result that this leaves a large number of persons under suspicion, including one or two whose names have been published in the Press without supporting evidence. I regret this very much.
The following action is therefore being taken. First, one or two matters came to Sir Douglas Allen's attention which could not be wholly explained. I have therefore decided, after consultation with the Attorney-General, to invite the police to carry out an investigation into these matters and into any other material in Sir Douglas Allen's report which may appear to them to justify further probing. This investigation will be directed towards discovering who was responsible for the disclosure.
I informed the Attorney-General of this decision and he has considered the matter. He now informs me that he has had regard to all the relevant factors, including Mr. Field's voluntary admission, and he authorises me to say that he is informing Mr. Field that he will not be prosecuted in respect of any offence under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this matter. He is giving the same undertaking to those concerned

653
with the publication of the article in New Society.
Secondly, there is the matter of the procedures for handling Cabinet documents. As an immediate measure, I am issuing fresh directions that the existing rules are to be scrupulously observed. I think, however, that the rules themselves should be examined by a small Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Houghton has agreed to be chairman of this body and that the other members will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
Finally, this episode has raised once again the question whether the present definition and classification of official secrets, and the arrangements for their protection, is right. This is ground that has already been covered by the Franks Report which the Government have been considering. The Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible for reforming the Official Secrets Act in a way which will make its coverage both more limited and more effective.
The House will be informed of the result of these further steps.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I thank the Prime Minister for making this statement? I understand from his last sentence that this is a first report and that he will be making others when he has the reports of the further investigation.
Is he aware that we are very disturbed that, after fairly extensive inquiries over some time, we are no nearer to resolving this abuse of trust, and we therefore welcome his decision to bring in the police to find out who was responsible for these disclosures and how they occurred? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we also welcome his decision to set up a Committee of three Privy Counsellors to inquire into the process and procedure under which Cabinet Minutes are circulated.
The statement was very detailed, and we shall wish to study it carefully before making too many comments, but the Prime Minister referred to two matters of very grave concern. The first was that the strict procedures for handling the
654
document were not observed and the second was that the Limited Circulation Annex was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. Were these individuals only civil servants who would need to see the minute for the purpose of carrying out their professional duty in relation to the substance of the minute or was it more serious than that?
The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for her general observations. Of course I shall keep the House informed of further results if I can.
The strict procedures were not observed for what were thought to be good administrative reasons in some cases. But these reasons must be overridden. For example, where a Department has the Minister's office on the north side of the Thames but important elements of the Department are situated on the south side of the river, one can see that the Department might drift into the position of saying "The Minister must see this document. Let us photo-copy it and send it across to him". This is the kind of thing that happened. It is understandable, but rules were broken and that must stop. This will cause certain administrative inconvenience in the case of Cabinet documents. I regret it, but I can see no other way.
The individuals outside Private Offices to whom I referred were not, to my knowledge or the knowledge of Sir Douglas Allen, improper persons. It may have been political advisers or junior Ministers who required to see it and came into the Minister's Private Office to read it. Sometimes it went to their offices and was conveyed to their attention for them to see, probably in the same building, and maybe on the same floor. That is what I meant when I made that reference.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the answer to that supplementary question is extremely illuminating? If the document were of such consequence and secrecy that it ought to be kept to a very small number, it is surprising that 34 copies were made. I hope that the Committee will look at the question of classification very closely.
I also take it not only that the Prime Minister will look at the Official Secrets Act but that his recommendation will

655
be brought in after hearing the recommendations of the three Privy Counsellors who are looking at the whole matter.
Lastly, from the first occasion when it was mentioned that there might have been a criminal offence in connection with this matter, we urged that the police should be called in, and we are very glad that this has now happened.
The Prime Minister: I think that it is not possible to get the number below 34. It might be possible to reduce it by two or three, and if the Committee of Privy Counsellors recommended that, it would be considered. But clearly every member of the Cabinet, as a start, is entitled to know the record of the meetings he attended. Then there are others. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can appreciate that. I should have thought that the number of 34 was a very small one.
As to whether the document was properly graded, that is a different matter, but it does not remove the essential offence, which is that someone who had signed a document saying that he would not betray this trust has done so.
Mr. George Cunningham: Admitting that the transgression must be followed up and not forgiven, will the Prime Minister answer these two questions? First, was the document graded as secret or confidential? Secondly, is the Prime Minister satisfied that it was right to treat this document in the extremely secret way in which it was treated, given that no really important interest was involved at all?
The Prime Minister: The document was graded secret. The question whether it was graded properly is a matter of judgment on which everybody can have a different opinion. The fact is that it was graded as secret. People know what the rules are, and those rules were broken.
Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister say what is the crime that is suspected and that the police are being called in to investigate? The Prime Minister has indicated that there is no longer a question of a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in this matter. He has also indicated that theft is not involved, as the document was copied. Are the police being called in to investigate just a breach
656
of the rules or, if it is a crime, which criminal statute is involved?
The Prime Minister: I feel that some of these questions should be addressed to the Attorney-General, as it is after consultation with him that I have taken my decision. But, in regard to the general issue, people have signed a declaration, and that declaration has apparently been breached. That is what the police will be investigating.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Prime Minister has referred to the amendment of the Official Secrets Act. I assume that he means Section 2 thereof. Is it not the case that the introduction of a freedom of information Act would abolish the necessity for half of this unnecessary secrecy on subjects that really do not matter? Will he not agree that a freedom of information Act would stop all these leaks—official, unofficial and semiofficial?
The Prime Minister: I think that on that question the Government will have to reach their own conclusions and produce them. In the light of this matter I am having to change my own mind about the Official Secrets Act. I have been against any reform of it, for reasons that I will not go into now, but probably I shall have to desert that position and bring forward some proposals.
The Attorney-General has asked me to mention a matter that I omitted to answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) did not quite hear me at the time, but immunity has been extended by the Attorney-General only to Mr. Frank Field and those on the New Society magazine.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the great frankness of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, and welcome what he proposes to do. I should like, however, to ask him one important question. It concerns the positive vetting of the 24 political advisers who are now inside the Government machine. I must ask the Prime Minister whether these gentlemen or ladies are subject to the same precise positive vetting of their backgrounds to see whether they are politically reliable as applies to all civil servants.
The Prime Minister: The answer to that question, to my knowledge, is

657
"Yes". If I am incorrect I shall communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to extend immunity to the two journalists, Mr. Barker and Mr. Field, will be widely welcomed, as they were doing no more than printing material which was apparently given to them?
Will my right hon. Friend say what the position will be if the police inquiries turn up an alleged culprit, and such a person is prosecuted? Is there any possibility of contempt proceedings being taken against these journalists if—as they would have to continue to do—they refused to reveal sources?
The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which I would prefer the Attorney-General to answer, when questions are put to him. As to what would happen if the police were to find whoever betrayed this trust, we must wait and see what circumstances are revealed.
Mr. Stanbrook: As a matter of public policy, is it wise to grant immunity to the publishers? After all, if there were no recipients of stolen property there would be no thieves.
The Prime Minister: This is not my decision, and I do not wish to comment on it. It is a decision of the Attorney-General, and I think it must properly be left there. I have not sought to influence the Attorney-General in any way. I understand that it is not uncommon—the hon. Gentleman will know this from his legal experience, no doubt, and will correct me if I am wrong—to grant immunity in certain circumstances in order to assist inquiries. But I should prefer these questions to be dealt with not by the Government on a political basis but by the Attorney-General.
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very refreshing to hear any Prime Minister admit that he ought to change his view on something? I trust that that will be followed by other Ministers.
Will my right hon. Friend perhaps spell out a little more clearly the terms of reference of the Committee of Privy Counsellors? Will the Privy Counsellors be looking into the question of non-attributable discussions that take place between
658
the Press and Ministers? This has a bearing on the issue that we have just been discussing.
The Prime Minister: I have tried to give the House the quickest report I could, in view of the complaint last Monday. As the House knows, I returned to this country only on Tuesday, and was away yesterday; therefore I have not yet agreed the terms of reference of the Privy Counsellors. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that. Basically, they will be concerned with looking at the procedures for handling papers and handling documents inside the Government, to see whether there is any weakness in the machine that ought to be tightened.
I am glad to be able to acknowledge that I changed my mind. Perhaps that might encourage my hon. Friend to do that sometimes.
Mr. Lawson: In the light of possible future occurrences of a still more serious nature, does the Prime Minister think that in the course of his general review it might be a good idea to extend to Sir Douglas Allen the Draconian investigatory powers given under Schedule 6 of the present Finance Bill to ordinary tax inspectors; and, if not, why not?
The Prime Minister: I do not know.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter will obviously have to come up again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Business Statement—the Lord President.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on immigration, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of EEC Document R/2274/75 on Sheepmeat Régime.
TUESDAY 6TH JULY—Motion on the White Papers on Pay and Prices Policy and the related Orders.

659
Motion on Compensation for Limitation of Prices (British Gas Corporation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 7TH JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: Conclusion of the debate on pay and prices policy.
Consideration of EEC Document R/3070/75 on Units of Measurement.
THURSDAY 8TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Race Relations Bill.
FRIDAY 9TH JULY—Debate on the First Report of the Select Committee on Direct Elections To The European Assembly, House of Commons Paper No. 489.
Consideration of EEC Documents R/1361/73 and R/877/75 on Public Service Contracts.
MONDAY 12TH JULY—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Third Reading of the Development Land Tax Bill, and remaining stages of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.
Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to raise just two points. The first is about the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on pay and prices policy. On what motion will that debate be held? Will the Leader of the House make clear that the second day is a Supply Day which is only lent and not given, and that the Opposition would like it back, please? The Government are used to borrowing, so we want a little repayment.
The second point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the situation with regard to water supply is very serious indeed. Will he arrange for a statement to be made next week so that we know what emergency action should be taken before an emergency occurs?
Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for both of her questions. I shall certainly try to return anything that we borrow, but I cannot promise to do so next week. Certainly I acknowledge that the Opposition have assisted us with the offer of a Supply Day to enable the House to have the two-day debate, which is of assistance to everyone. The debate would be, I think, on a "take note" motion. although obviously amendments could be put down if that were desired by the Opposition or anyone else. Then there
660
are the related Orders which, although I have set them down on the Tuesday, I imagine, if it were wished that they be voted upon, could be voted upon on the Wednesday.
I hope that a statement will be made to the House tomorrow about the drought.
Mr. Grimond: With his remarkable command of English, will the Leader of the House explain a little more about "sheepmeat regime"? My constituents know about sheep, meat and regime. It the phrase a direct translation from some Common Market document, or does it mean a diet for those who have to eat sheepmeat?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that it has anything to do with diet. I think that the phrase is due to the language used in Brussels, which we have to use in the House of Commons.
Mr. Bidwell: What form will the debate on Monday take on immigration? Will that be on a Government motion?
Mr. Foot: It will be on the Adjournment. It is a Supply Day. It is a subject chosen by the Opposition.
Mr. Pym: As the Leader of the House must be aware that the Council of Ministers has decided to change the proposals in the EEC document in relation to sheep-meat, would it not be more sensible to have a debate on that subject when the Council's present proposals have been produced so that we can get down to the new situation?
Mr. Foot: If that is more convenient for the House, we shall do that. We were recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to have this debate, but if it is more convenient to have the debate at a later stage, we shall see whether we can do that—although there have been requests from the House that we should have some of these debates earlier.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Once again there will be great disappointment that the Public Lending Right Bill is not included in the business for next week. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter that is not in contention between the two Front Benches? Is he further aware, therefore, that we could do with some non-contentious business? Would it not be a very good time to put in that

661
business? There have been occasions over the last two or three weeks when it could have been slipped in and we could have taken it. Why not take the opportunity now?
Mr. Foot: I fully share my hon. Friend's disappointment that we have not proceeded further with the Bill, but, once again, I give him the assurance that I have given him on two or three previous occasions. This is a Government measure that has the full backing of the Government and we wish to press ahead with it as soon as it is convenient for the House to do so.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was great resentment in the fishing communities at the betrayal of their interests by the original Tory negotiators before we entered the Common Market and that this was compounded by their Labour successors by fishing not being on the agenda in the renegotiations? Following the pusillanimous and unacceptable statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this week, does the Leader of the House agree that it is now essential that we should have a debate on fishery limits as quickly as possible?
Mr. Foot: I am sorry that I cannot promise a debate on this important subject. I fear also that I cannot accept all the adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman. A statement was made on the subject by my right hon. Friend. We shall have to see what are the possibilities of a debate later.
Mr. Gould: When will the Order giving effect to the EEC directive on eviscerated chickens be laid before the House? Will it be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure?
Mr. Foot: I cannot yet give a date. I know that there is considerable feeling in many parts of the House about this matter and a desire that it should be debated, hut we shall have to see what are the possibilities for a debate.
Mr. John Davies: Returning to the subject of sheepmeat, the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that since the Scrutiny Committee recommended this matter for debate, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has, in evidence to the Scrutiny Committee, made it
662
abundantly clear that there were to be substantial changes to this particular proposal. Surely it would be wiser to wait until those substantial changes have been made and laid before us.
Mr. Foot: There are some problems about the time that we would have available for debates later, but I fully acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said. Since in particular the Scrutiny Committee, over which he presides, has given us so much assistance on this matter, when he makes that suggestion I shall certainly give it serious consideration.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that last week various representations were made to him about medical facilities for urgent cases in the House? What would any of us say about a factory employing 3,000 people in any of our constituencies which did not have at any rate normal nursing facilities? Considering the number of Members, visitors, journalists and all those who work in this place, is it not a scandal that something is not done about this matter?
Mr. Foot: I quite agree. Following the representations made to me a week ago, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Prescott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), we have taken some steps. I hope that by the beginning of next week we shall have some facilities provided in the House, with a State-registered nurse and facilities on the premises. I hope that they will be in operation at the beginning of next week, on a temporary basis. Thereafter, as soon as we can we shall have them on a permanent basis. That is what the House would want. Certainly we have got on with it as fast as we could.
Mr. Peyton: Why did we not have the usual statement yesterday on European business for July? Instead, there was a rather unsatisfactory Written Answer—in column 102 of Hansard—merely saying that a forecast of the business had been deposited in the Library. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether we could go back to the former practice?
When is it likely that the House will have a chance of debating the considerable volume of paper which has been generated by the Department of the Environment—concerning rates, water and

663
transport? All three are awaiting the attention of the House.
Mr. Foot: On the first question, I am not sure whether the commitment of the Government to have a statement on the EEC business ahead is absolute. I know that there have been statements on most occasions. If the commitment is absolute, I shall certainly see why it was not honoured on this occasion. I thought that there was some possibility of variation, but I shall examine the matter.
I shall not comment on each of the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman because I think that they have been raised previously. I cannot promise immediate debates on all those different subjects, although obviously they are all important subjects that will have to be debated in the House before we can proceed to legislation on them.
Mr. McCrindle: Does the Leader of the House accept that there are many who do not necessarily take the Government's view that the best way of obtaining representation for members of occupational pension schemes is through trade union representation? May we have a debate on this subject and the subject matter of the White Paper before the Government introduce legislation?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate on this subject. I know that there is great interest in it in the House. The White Paper is being published. There is widespread discussion on the subject and I am sure that there will be plenty of time for full discussion before we come to laying legislation before the House.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Trade about the use of selective import controls, because as investment is needed for British industry, we want some of that industry left in which to reinvest?
Does my right hon. Friend think that this is the weather to take a long cool look at the House of Lords, which he has been promising for some time, because we are facing obstruction on the Floor of this House and I am sure we shall face obtruction on the Floor of that House over some controversial legis-
664
lation? Can he now say whether we shall reassemble on 1st September and get the backlog of legislation out of the way? Does he not think that we should have a short summer break and come back to work early?
Mr. Foot: Obviously the question of selective import controls is one of major economic policy. I cannot promise any statement on the subject although it could enter into the discussions which will take place on economic policy over the next few weeks. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will take the opportunity to raise it.
In respect of a long cool look at the House of Lords, I cannot promise that we shall have a House of Lords (No. 3) Bill before the end of the recess. I do not believe that that would speed up the process. The House of Lords will have to take the legislation which we send from this House and, undoubtedly, very important legislation will be going to the House of Lords in the near future. I hope that the House of Lords will understand that this is legislation which comes from this elected House of Commons.
As for the date of 1st September, I do not have any statement to make on that subject. What I have said before is that it is the Government's intention to suit the convenience of the House as much as we possibly can but also to ensure that our legislation will be carried through.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the humiliating collapse of the Government last night in respect of the Education Bill, and the fact that no mention has been made of the Education Bill at all in next week's business, does this confirm the rumour going around the House that the Government will now drop this unwanted Bill?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of this House who is unwise enough to believe so foolish a rumour. There is, of course, no possibility that the Government will drop the Bill. What we hope is that we shall make considerable progress on the Bill today. We are providing plenty of time for the Bill, and I hope that we shall make more progress than we made yesterday. There was certainly no humiliation of the Government yesterday. We won

665
all the debates and all the votes. Unfortunately, there were not as many votes as we would wish, but we hope that that will be remedied in future.
Mr. Torney: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a more accurate answer to the question put to him by the acting Leader of the Liberal Party, in respect of the sheepmeat regime, would have been for him to explain to the House that the real meaning is that we can have a huge surplus mountain of mutton and lamb in the same way as we have in respect of beef, butter and milk powder?
Mr. Foot: If I had replied in those terms I might have been accused of introducing a controversial note, and the House knows how loath I am to do that.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The Leader of the House will probably have noticed the Early-Day Motion directing our attention to the presence in the country of a visitor from the Soviet Union which is just about as distasteful as that of Mr. Shelepin. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make a statement on this matter, including not just this specific matter, but a more general one which would clarify the criteria on which this Government seem to admit some people to this country and not others? They are criteria which the rest of us find totally incomprehensible.
[That this House deplores the welcome extended by Her Majesty's Government to Professor Marat Vartanyan, self-confessed exponent of the use of psychiatry, including the compulsory administration of dangerous drugs and enforced detention in mental institutions in order to bring about the so-called political reform of dissidents, and the Kremlin's chief expert in this detestable perversion of medical ethics and practice; condemns the rôle, in particular, in his sustained persecution of Professor Bukovsky, endangering his life; and regards Her Majesty's Government's action as yet another shocking example of politically-motivated double standards, when looked at in the context of its recent refusal of entry to young Rhodesians to play cricket here solely on grounds of disapproval of some of their home government's political policies.]
Mr. Foot: I certainly do not accept the terms of the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. The gentleman to whom he refers is not in this country as a guest of the British Government. He is here as an individual, and that raises no question of political decisions such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The hon. Gentleman's motion compares that visit with the Rhodesian situation, and the Rhodesian visit, but that was a question of giving support to an illegal régime. I am sorry that a motion giving comfort to an illegal régime should have been placed on the Order Paper by those who are supposed to uphold law and order.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House who is the Secretary of the Services Committee so that we can have a go at him before prices rise any further? I had to pay 25p for one baked apple.
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I am responsible for my hon. Friend's apple but I am responsible for the Services Committee. If he wants to have a go at anyone on this subject he must have a go at me.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which will be necessary to give effect to his undertakings to the Scottish and Welsh National Parties, will be put down in good time so that these privileges may be examined to see whether they are not, in themselves, giving rise to further hybridity?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that such a possibility will not arise. Of course, we shall put down amendments in good time so that the House can discuss them. That is the proper way to proceed. It is most unfortunate that an Early-Day Motion should have been put down criticising those who had discussed the matter in the debate but we shall have time to discuss this matter further. That is what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who interrupted me during the debate, and that is the normal procedure in the House.
[That this House deplores the conduct of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist Members of Parliament in declining to cast their votes at the end of the debate

667
on Aircraft and Shipbuilding Nationalisation on 29th June; is amazed that their change of heart was secured by an ambiguous and threadbare series of so-called assurances; notes with concern the prospect of a further extension of nationalisation which has already done so much damage to vital Scottish and Welsh industries like steel; expresses its contempt for political parties which seek to gather support on the basis of facing all ways on vital issues which affect the Scottish and Welsh nations and their peoples; and questions the concern for their country of Members of Parliament who refuse to vote against proposals to spend £300 million of taxpayers' money on nationalisation at a time when vital social services are being cut back because of shortage of public funds.]
Mr. Jay: If the debate on sheepmeat is to be postponed, may we at least have an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will not sell the pass in Brussels before the debate is held?
Mr. Foot: I cannot accept such language, of course, but I understand that my right hon. Friend would desire that a debate on the matter takes place before decisions are taken at Brussels. That is the general term of the undertaking which has been given by the Government. My right hon. Friend knows that there has been some qualification of this, but that is what we are seeking to carry out.
Mr. Peter Mills: Returning to the regulation about poultry health, why cannot the Government bring this Order before the House? Does the Leader of the House realise that many poultry farmers, and those connected with the industry, are deeply concerned about this and must know where they stand? If I may say so, even the birds would like to know whether they will be eviscerated.
Mr. Foot: I will see what are the chances of bringing the Order forward for discussion.
Mr. Corbett: Can the Leader of the House promise a debate on the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I am sorry but I cannot do so because the time before the recess is taken up with extremely urgent business,
668
and I cannot promise debates on many important subjects such as that raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tebbit: Has the Lord President noticed, perhaps because of the weather, or because of the Government's legislative programme, that a great many Members on both sides of the House have fallen to discussing the possible dates for the recess? Would he not agree, particularly for those hon. Members who have children at school, and family commitments, that it would be highly desirable if we did not behave in this somewhat odd way over the options open to the Government in this matter? Would he not agree that it would be better if he said early what the Government's intentions were concerning rising, and a possible return in September, or a possible extension of the Session beyond the normal time in October if the Government think fit?
Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—particularly because of the representations which are made by those who have their family holidays fixed. I certainly appreciate that this is one of the factors which the Government have to take into account. The Government have difficulties of their own, too. I have already indicated that there will be a statement tomorrow about the water situation, and that may involve some extra time. That has to be taken into account, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter he has raised is one of the considerations that we are taking into account. Of course I would like to announce the dates much earlier, but I am sure the House appreciates what the difficulties are.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to to the House? If hon. Members will ask crisp questions I will try to get everyone in, but I can only try.
Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend remember that it is about five weeks since the House set up the Sessional Committee on Procedure, the normal Procedure Committee, and that it is not free to do anything at all, even to meet, until the House refers some subject to it? Exactly why has my right Friend not brought forward a motion to

669
refer anything to that Committee yet? Will he do so soon?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has a very good grievance. We should have put forward some of those proposals and I will do my best—I will not say to satisfy him, because that is always difficult—to go some way to satisfying him next week.
Mr. Mayhew: Will there be an early Bill to ratify the European Patent Convention? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the European Patent Office will open in Munich early next year and that United Kingdom patent agents stand to lose about 10,000 patent applications unless we ratify by then, with a possible loss of £10 million turnover to this country?
Mr. Foot: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The matter has been raised with me. I cannot promise immediate legislation on the subject, but I appreciate the importance of the matter.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Following the conviction of Jersey Aviation Limited for supplying £l¼ million-worth of arms from the MoD depot at Chigwell to South Africa, may we have—in fact, are we not entitled to—an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, since his Department must have known the ultimate destination and if it did not know, it should have known, and was guilty of gross negligence? As there are other serious allegations of arms being supplied from this country to South Africa, are we not entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State?
Mr. Foot: I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider a statement in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Moate: If the right hon. Gentleman decides to defer the debate on Monday on the sheepmeat régime, would he seriously consider using the time to try to complete the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—bearing in mind that we have almost reached the end of that Bill and that it could be disposed of quite quickly?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman may have noted that his proposal has not met with immediate unanimous acceptance.
670
I shall consider the suggestion, but if we postpone—as we probably should—the sheepmeat régime discussion, we shall have to see what is the best course for the House.
Mr. Spearing: On Friday week, 9th July, my right hon. Friend has said that there will be a debate on direct elections and EEC documents on public service contracts. What is the nature of the motion that he will table?
Mr. Foot: It will be a "take note" motion.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the Prime Minister's change of mind about the Official Secrets Act and the general wish of the House that this legislation should be reformed, will the Leader of the House arrange before the recess for a short debate on that Act? Before he replies, may I put one crisp point to him? Many of us recall how difficult it was to persuade the United States to give us access to nuclear secrets because of their concern about British security. As long as this matter is hanging around unanswered, there will be feelings in Washington, justified or otherwise, that there still may be a "sleeper" in Whitehall willing to give Western military secrets to our mutual enemies.
Mr. Foot: I think that the Prime Minister has dealt with the general matter in a way satisfactory to the House as a whole. I cannot promise a debate on the Official Secrets Act in general before the recess, but clearly what the Prime Minister has said is that fresh consideration is to be given to the question whether there should be legislation on the matter. The favourable reply that he has given on that subject is helpful and of course legislation would mean a debate in the House.
Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Early-Day Motion, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members on this side, calling for an early statement by the Government on their acceptance of the principle of the need for decasualisation in the fishing industry? Is he aware of the deep resentment on Humberside and in the fishing ports that the Government failed to make this announcement as part of the statement on Monday?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Agriculture,

671
Fisheries and Food that the Government will discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the Icelandic settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might have otherwise received under the Redundancy Payments Acts: reminds the Government that this situation would not have arisen if fishermen enjoyed the same terms and conditions of employment as shore-based workers; and calls upon the Government to declare its commitment to the immediate decasualisation of the fishing industry and to initiate discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union and the vessel owners to ensure that objective.]
Mr. Foot: I know that there are considerable feelings on this subject. When I was at the Department of Employment I took part in discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture on the possibilities of decasualisation. In view of the number of the signatories to that motion, I recognise that there is strong feeling on this side on the matter. I cannot promise immediate action but I am sure that the Government will recognise that this is the line on which my hon. Friends wish us to proceed.
Mr. Boscawen: In view of the grave situation facing the shoe manufacturing industry, which situation is going on and on, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade to make an early statement on what he is doing about it, if anything?
[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:

Body

Name and Appointment

Amount of Salary or fee

Equal Opportunities Commission

Lord Allen of Fallowfield, member (part-time)

£16 per day

BBC

Lord Allan of Kilmahew (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

Lord Feather of the City of Bradford (part-time)

Lord Greenhill of Harrow (part-time)

Community Relations Commission

Lord Pitt, Deputy Chairman (part-time)

£1,500 per annum

Lord Campbell of Eskan (part-time)

£16 per day

Baroness Serota (part-time)

Women's Royal Voluntary Service

Baroness Pike, Chairman (part-time)

£6,000 per annum

Port of London Authority

Lord Aldington, Chairman (part-time)

£10,000 per annum

Milton Keynes New Town Development Corporation

Lord Campbell of Eskan, Chairman (part-time)

£7,415 per annum

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early statement. My right hon. Friend has made statements on the subject, I understand, in the not-too-distant past, but I shall see whether a fresh statement is required.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In considering the date of the recess, may I take it that the Lord President understands that Scottish school children get their holidays at the end of June and go back to school on 14th August? Will he bear that in mind when he tries to take us into August?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether it is more beneficial to the House that we should have the hon. Lady's presence or her absence. Sometimes it is one, sometimes the other, and we shall try to work the matter out conveniently for both of us.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend seen the three Early-Day Motions signed by one of the most important Members of the House, drawing attention to the hundreds of millions of pounds per year which are being paid out to Members of the House of Lords on a part-time basis? They are drawing thousands of pounds each in expenses which could be cut without hardship or suffering for anyone. When the Government consider any such cuts, will they make these as quick and severe as possible? Hon. Members on this side would give 100 per cent. support to such action.

British Waterways Board

Lord Feather of the City of Bradford, Vice-Chairman (part-time)

£2,250 per annum

Housing Corporation

Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Deputy Chairman (part-time)

£3,840 per annum

Development Commission

Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time)

£5,000 per annum

Telford New Town Development Corporation

Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time)

£4,432 per annum

Commissioners for Local Administration in England]

Baroness Serota, Chairman (part-time)

£13,310 per annum

[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:

Body

Name and Appointment

Amount of Salary after Tax

Chairman of the Council on Tribunals

Lord Tweedsmuir (part-time)

£5,164 per annum

British National Oil Corporation

Lord Balogh, Deputy Chairman (part-time)

£8,950 per annum

National Water Council

Lord Nugent (part-time)

£8,450 per annum

British Railways Board

Lord Taylor of Gryfe (part-time)

£3,000 per annum

Welsh National Water Development Authority

Lord Brecon (part-time)

£6,175 per annum

The Land Authority for Wales

Lady White (part-time)

£6,500 per annum

Cwmbran Development Corporation

Lord Raglan (part-time)

£4,432 per annum

Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Panel

Lord Briginshaw (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

British National Oil Corporation

Lord Briginshaw (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

Clwyd Area Health Authority

Lord Kenyon, Chairman (part-time)

£2,000 per annum

Telford New Town Corporation

Viscount Boyne, Deputy Chairman (part-time)

£1,966 per annum

British Waterways Board

Baroness White (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

Local Government Staff Commission

Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Chairman (part-time)

£250 per annum

National Freight Corporation

Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

Northampton New Town Development Corporation

Lord Hirshfield, Deputy Chairman (part-time)

£1,966 per annum

Warrington New Town Development Corporation

Lord Hamnett, Chairman (part-time)

£4,432 per annum

Southern Electricity Board

Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

UK Atomic Energy Authority

Lord Kearton (part-time)

£1,000 per annum

Central Electricity Generating Board

Lord Kearton (part-time)

£1,000 per annum]

[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:

Body

Name and Appointment

Amount of Fee or Salary

British Steel Corporation

Lord Layton (full-time member)

£21,830 per annum

British Steel Corporation

Viscount Weir (part-time member)

£1,000 per annum

British Steel Corporation

Lord Gregson (part-time member)

£1,000 per annum

National Enterprise Board Chairman

Lord Ryder (part-time chairman)

£31,850 per annum

National Research Development Corporation

Lord Schon (part-time chairman)

£2,000 per annum

Post Office

Lord Pitt (part-time member)

£1,000 per annum

East Kilbride & Stonehouse Development Corporation

Lord Hughes (part-time chairman)

£4,432 per annum

Forestry Commission

Lord Taylor of Gryfe, D.L. (part-time chairman)

£6,200 per annum

Meat & Livestock Commission Consumers Committee

Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath (part-time chairman)

£1,390 per annum

Meat & Livestock Commission

As above (part-time member)

£1,000 per annum

Review Board for Government Contracts

Viscount Caldecote, D.S.C. (part-time)

£1,350 per annum

Value Added Tax Tribunals

The Lord Jacques (part-time)

£20 per day plus travel expenses

Special Adviser to the Chancellor

Professor Lord Kaldor (part-time)

£14,000 per annum

Northern Ireland Tourist Board

Lord O'Neil, D.L., T.D. (part-time)

£1,000 per annum plus £750 per annum expenses and travelling and other expenses incurred on business outside of Northern Ireland

Board of the Local Enterprise Development Unit

Marquis of Hamilton (part-time)

£1,350 per annum plus £513·05 expenses

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the matter can be dealt with by that method, but I am sure that the terms of my hon. Friend's motions will be noted by those concerned.
Mr. Tom King: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister's statement that the only agreement reached with the nationalist parties was that contained in his own speech at the close of Tuesday's debate? Would he therefore explain how a statement has been released by Plaid Cymru which includes, in what it calls the "package" agreed with the Government, a whole lot of matters not disclosed to the House, including the possibility of a referendum, and the statement:
"A further significant commitment has been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at this time."?
Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Certainly nothing was agreed by the Government outside what I stated to the House. Any statements about agreements on referenda or anything of the sort are completely without foundation. What was put to the House in the debate was in my speech. That is the situation and that is what we stand by. Of course, it was also made clear by me in the debate that it was on the basis of that statement that we should be able to proceed to later discussions and to any amendments if hon. Members wished to put them down.
Mr. Marten: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has noticed Early-Day
676
Motion No. 477 entitled "Hot Weather and Cool Dress" for the staff.
[That this House believes that during the summer months, and particularly when the temperature is above average, the stall of this House should be more appropriately attired; and that this matter be referred to the appropriate quarters for action without delay.]
That motion requires action. What action has been taken? Will he take some next week?
May I support the general campaign for eviscerated chicken to be put on the menu for debate in this House because we want to chuck it out before the recess?
Mr. Foot: I have already answered the question about eviscerated chicken. I know how many hon. Members wish to have a debate on the subject. As for cooler dress, relaxations have been arranged, I understand. I am all in favour of them and believe that they should apply to Members of Parliament, too. I do not see why we should go around dressed like a bunch of disappointed, dyspeptic stockbrokers. Hon. Members might set the fashion for the members of staff and I hope, that the members of staff will have every encouragement to dress as suitably as they can to such a season.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman think carefully before postponing the debate on the sheepmeat regime, bearing in mind that in these agricultural matters "too soon" quickly becomes "too late"? We want to have this debate in the formative stage and

677
not after the final proposals have been formulated.
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was for that reason that the motion was put down for discussion on Monday next. However, I have received representations, including representations from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), that we should postpone it because there has been a considerable alteration in the Order. I will look at the matter in the light of both representations and see what may be convenient for the House. I will also take into account what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that the House wants a debate before a decision is taken.
Mr. Cormack: So that we may debate the highly controversial legislation still before the House in proper detail without a guillotine motion, will the Leader of the House agree that this Session should be extended until Christmas and the next Session truncated?
Mr. Foot: It is much too early to decide such questions.
Mr. Aitken: Does the Lord President recall that the House was promised a debate on foreign affairs before the Summer Recess and can he give an assurance that, despite the muddled situation of the Government's programme, that promise will be kept?
Mr. Foot: Since I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's premise about a muddle I cannot agree with his conclusion, and I cannot promise a debate on foreign affairs before the recess. I will see what was said and whether we are bound by any undertaking, but I have indicated that we have a serious amount of legislation and other important business to transact, and I am sure that the House would wish to put first things first.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend told me that if I wanted to have a go at anybody on account of the food served in the House, I should have a go at him. Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether that means that my right hon. Friend is responsible for eight hon. Members who had to be nodded through the Division Lobby last week because they had contracted
678
food poisoning from House of Commons food?
Mr. Foot rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the Lord President seeking to answer the point of order?
Mr. Foot: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I was just about to tell the House that I intended to make an exception by calling the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) but in general, once I have drawn attention to the fact that I want crisp questions, if people have not been rising earlier seeking to be called, I do not intend to call them, or the debate will go on until the recess.
Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend note that renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement will shortly begin and, in view of that and of the fact that the Government have not succeeded, during the present negotiations, in establishing more than a framework, does he agree that we should have an early debate on these negotiations, so that hon. Members representing textile constituencies can make their views known?
Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate the position of the textile industry and the difficulties it is now encountering. On a number of occasions my hon. Friends concerned have drawn these to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned. I will see whether there are possibilities for arranging for further such representations, but I fear that I cannot promise an actual debate on the subject. Possibly there could be a further statement.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an answer to my question.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know the answer. That is why I tried to forget it.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Mr. Tom King: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, the prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader

679
of the House and the Government and certain hon. Members of this House without the knowledge or consent of this House, and that this may have led to a vote being taken in a recent debate under false pretences.
I understand that my duty under Standing Order No. 9 is to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker, under the criteria of the Standing Order. This is a very specific matter because it was dealt with quite specifically by the Prime Minister today in Answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the only undertakings given and agreements made were those mentioned in the rather turgid opening of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Tuesday night. I have a copy of that speech—an extract from the Official Report. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the whole of the relevant passage is contained in columns 323 to 326 of the Official Report of 29th June.
I also have in my hand the report of the Press release from the Plaid Cymru Paty stating the agreement that it has reached. It has said that this was the package agreed with the Government. I accept in good faith this statement that these undertakings were given; and we were aware that considerable negotiations were taking place during the course of that debate to see whether an agreed statement could be made. We are aware that things were in writing so that there was no question of any misunderstanding in that form. This is very specific because there are specific items here which were specifically excluded from the statement made by the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. King: A specific point was that the Government would consider holding a referendum of employees of the company to ascertain their attitude towards nationalisation—if I may say so, quite an excellent idea, which we have long supported. But there was no mention whatsoever of this in the statement of the Leader of the House.
Further, and this is perhaps the most serious matter, the statement added that
680
a significant commitment had been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at present. How can that possibly be reconciled with the statement of the Prime Minister that the total agreement was contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House?
The importance of this matter will certainly not be lost on you, Mr. Speaker, for you are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this crucial issue, and it will be within your observation that the attitude of the nationalist parties was crucial to the result of the vote on 29th June. As we shall shortly be proceeding to further stages of this Bill it is obviously a matter of great urgency that this should be propertly considered.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite intolerable if secret deals are to be done in this House and if the word of the Prime Minister is to be questioned here as a result of his Answer at Question Time today. We believe—and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, fully within the correct criteria of Standing Order No. 9—that this matter should have urgent consideration and that it should be made clear to the House whether in fact a deal has been done or whether the nationalist parties have been double-crossed by the Government, or what is the true situation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an application under Standing Order No. 9 and I must rule on it. The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader of the House and certain hon. Members without the knowledge and consent of the House, and that this may have led to a vote having been taken under false pretences.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have given that consideration to the representations the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing

681
Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does Mr. Speaker consider that it is in accordance with the best traditions of this House that this matter should have been raised without notice being given to the persons under attack, namely, Plaid Cymru? Had they known of it, I am certain that they would have been here. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I do not think it behoves two parties whose attendance is very poor to start on that tack. I point out that the attendance record of hon. Members on this Bench is very good, so all this noise is quite absurd.
It is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House that hon. Members should be attacked without being given notice in advance—
Mr. Speaker: I have, of course, noted the hon. Lady's excellent attendance record in the Chamber. However, when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9, no one is able to speak, except Mr. Speaker to give his ruling. That is why the Lord President of the Council was not able to intervene, as no doubt he wished to do. Therefore, this is not a case where I can rule whether notice was given to hon. Members that a matter was being raised.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? I believe that it may be helpful
682
to the whole House. The Lord President said that the statement of Plaid Cymru on this matter was false. He said that in terms today. May I ask you to rule whether it is proper for any party to put out, in an official statement, matters about the conduct of the affairs of this House which are patently untrue?
Mr. Speaker: The House is not to pursue the question of the Standing Order No. 9 application which I have rejected. It is out of order to try to keep that issue alive.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &C.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Fiji) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Romania) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The Democratic Republic of the Sudan) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EDUCATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  EDUCATION BILL
    New Clause 17

      SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL TREATMENT
      '(1) In section 33(2) of the Education Act 1944 leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert "provide for their education in ordinary schools maintained by a local education authority or in ordinary schools not so maintained, other than one notified by the Minister to the local education authority to be, in his opinion, unsuitable for the purpose, but where that is impracticable the arrangements may provide for the giving of such education in special schools appropriate for that category.".
      (2) After section 34(4) of the said Act insert the following subsection:—
      "4A. If a local education authority decides that a child requires special educational treatment, they shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent unless the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or is withholding his consent unreasonably."'.—[Mr. Ashley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.33 p.m.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 5, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 'affecting' and insert 'prohibiting'.
      No. 14, in Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert:
      'but this subsection shall not be construed as permitting the provision of secondary education for pupils suffering from disability of body but not of mind in schools where arrangements for the admission of pupils are based wholly or partly on selection by reference to intellectual ability or academic aptitude'.
      Mr. Ashley: The House will be glad to hear that I propose to speak to these amendments without filibustering.
      The clause and the amendments are designed to reduce the dependence of disabled children on special schooling. They provide that special schooling shall be allowed only when normal schooling is
      684
      definitely impracticable. Together the clause and the amendments aim to give disabled children precisely the same education provision as other children.
      The clause and the amendments emphasise the need for integration. I believe that it is quite wrong for any group of disabled people to be forced to mix only with a group of similarly disabled people. For example, it is wrong that the blind should be compelled to mix only with the blind, or the deaf with the deaf, or the crippled with the crippled It is of paramount importance that we enable these children to mix with non-disabled children and thereby to extend their educational horizons. In so doing, we shall be ensuring that they also extend their social and economic horizons.
      "Integration" is a very easy word to use, but what does it mean in terms of this clause? First, I think that the House should recognise that the essential element of any disability is loneliness. It does not matter what the disability is—blindness, deafness, being paralysed, being spastic, suffering from multiple sclerosis or epilepsy. Any disablement means loneliness for the disabled person. Often this is not recognised by people who are not disabled. The trouble is that disabled people are often ill at ease when they first begin to move back into what I call normal society.
      No one knows until he is disabled what it means to have the nod and smile from the public and then be passed by on the other side of the street or even in the same building. Severely disabled people can rely only on their families and close friends to ease this appalling burden of loneliness. That is why integration is of such paramount importance.
      It is a two-fold process. First, it enables disabled children to learn to mix with non-disabled children, which is essential. But, equally important, it enables non-disabled children to begin to understand disablement and thereby to create for themselves an entirely new dimension of understanding of human nature and of mankind.
      This two-way process will be furthered by the new clause. It will enable disabled children and non-disabled children to understand each other better.
      In my view, it is essential for this process to start at the earliest possible age.

      685
      The understanding of human fellowship is best developed at the earliest possible stage of children's development so that they can begin to understand their capabilities and their capacity for mixing with others.
      In addition to that important aspect the new clause and the amendments provide for the requirement of parental consent. I believe that parental consent to a disabled child's having special education is of greater importance than parental consent is normally, and normally it is of supreme importance. The reason for that is that only the parents of a disabled child understand the specific problems created by a severe disability. That is why parental consent must loom large in any consideration of the education of a severely disabled child. Only a parent is aware of the crucial need for the family background, and it has to be said that many special schools take children away from the family background. The rôle of the parents, therefore, is all important, and that is why we have stressed its significance in the clause and in the amendments.
      I come now to rather more difficult aspects of the clause and the amendments. The question is what we do about them. I believe that a very powerful case can be made out for the clause and the amendments, and I hope that I have made a modest contribution to it.
      But we have to recognise that this is not a new problem. It has been with us for many generations. Successive Governments have done very little about it. The burden does not rest only with this Government. It rests with preceding Administrations, and we must face the fact that very little has been done.
      It would be both foolish and unfair to place all the burden on this Government when they are facing the grave economic difficulties that they inherited from the previous Administration, and this places the advocates of the clause and the amendments in a fairly serious dilemma. What should we do?
      There is the possibility of a certain party political bias in any discussion of a clause of this kind, even though many of us manage to extirpate party political
      686
      considerations from the problems of disablement. We are proud of the success of the all-party group in eschewing party politics. With the exception of a number of respected members of the Opposition, such as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whose sincerity and fine work the House cannot doubt, and a few of his colleagues who work regularly on the all-party disablement group, I suspect any ardent advocacy of instant solutions by Opposition Members, simply because of their silence in years gone by. I make no accusation of a wilful attempt to make party political capital. However, I suggest that they treat this clause with caution. They should listen carefully to the Minister.
      I have had discussions with all the Ministers in the Department of Education. I am deeply impressed by their sincerity and their great anxiety to do what they can to help. They have certain fears about the possible repercussions of the clause, as it is clearly mandatory. It will require a considerable increase in public expenditure.
      The House knows that for many years a number of my colleagues and I have sought increased public expenditure for the disabled. We have had a fair degree of success. But we cannot win them all. We cannot force the Government all the time, by means of our voices or votes, to capitulate on every issue. Given the assurances that we have received from the Minister in our discussions, I am confident that it will not be necessary to press this clause.
      I asked the House to debate the clause as it is of great importance. I want to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides expressed as strongly and vigorously as possible. After the Minister has spoken, we shall be able to see what we may do about not pressing the clause. That will depend on the debate.
      Mr. John Hannam: We have great pleasure in supporting this worthy clause, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has earned so much respect from all Members of Parliament for his work on behalf of the handicapped. Normally we debate the affairs of the adult disabled and try to discover measures to improve their conditions at

      687
      work or at home. Today we are debating a matter of greater importance—how we may start disabled children in their lives.
      The new clause and the accompanying amendments refer to the important area of education for the handicapped. I am disappointed that some of the other new clauses that deal with the integration and access of disabled people and children to normal schools were not selected. They would have combined well and given an opportunity for a full and worthwhile debate. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to bring all these subjects into focus.
      4.45 p.m.
      New Clause 17 results from close consultations with the redoubtable and well-known Peter Large, Chairman of the Association of Disabled Professionals, and Martin Milligan, Chairman of the joint Education Committee of the National Federation of the Blind and the Association of Blind and Partially Sighted Teachers and Students. Those organisations and hon. Members who are concerned in the campaign for the integration of disabled people into normal life have become increasingly alarmed at the lack of progress being made in this country in secondary education for handicapped children.
      For a number of years Ministers have paid lip-service to that major objective. But in the Bill we find that the Government—albeit by accident—are enshrining the principle of special schools and the segregation of disabled children in them.
      I do not wish to become embroiled and I know that the hon. Gentleman tried to resist the temptation to become embroiled in the political argument about comprehensivisation. This problem rises clear above party political strife. All Members of Parliament want to do their best for the disabled. But I wonder whether they realise that under this legislation the interests of disabled children are likely to be harmed. It is strange and hypocritical that in a measure designed to remove selection at 11 the Government are writing in and perpetuating selection and grammar schools for blind and disabled children.
      We all seek as much education as possible for handicapped children in ordinary schools. That does not mean that every secondary school must cater for a small handful of handicapped children, with all the special equipment and staff that that would entail. We want local education authorities to make special provision in specified schools. For example, one school might have the staff and equipment available for the visually handicapped. Another school might have staff and equipment for deaf children. Another school might cater for other physical handicaps.
      Let us take the instance of education for blind children, of whom there are about 600 of secondary school age. It would be impossible to require comprehensive education for them within the special schools sector that now exists. That would require one large comprehensive school for the whole of England and Wales, and that would not be sensible. It would perpetuate the present situation. The school would become a boarding establishment with all the disadvantages of separating the children from their families and other children.
      If the Government mean what they say when they express their support for comprehensive education, they must apply the same rule to handicapped children, thereby giving a boost to the movement towards integrating education that we all want; otherwise it would be hypocrisy. Whatever system of secondary education we in Parliament ordain, it must be right to integrate as many handicapped children as possible into normal schools. The segregation of the handicapped from ordinary children is eminently undesirable. It does not prepare disabled children for the shock of competing in later life in the ordinary environment.
      I quote from a report issued by the National Children's Bureau on further education, training and employment for handicapped school leavers. It says:
      "sending a child away from his home and community to live in a specially designed boarding school, often isolated in the country and protected from normal social conditions and life, would not seem the best way to fit a child to live in that community after he leaves school. Many of our school-leavers commented somewhat bitterly on their sense of isolation from home and the home environment which boarding education had produced.

      689
      The Vernon committee report, 'The Education of the Visually Handicapped' (1972), has recommended that even blind children (who are now all in boarding schools) should be educated so far as possible in day schools or at least within weekend travel of their home, through proper regional planning."
      If we want a system of secondary education for all, we must ensure that handicapped children, who hold their own during their primary education, are integrated—not separated—during the years of further education between the ages of 12 and 16. They often drop back after holding their own in their primary education and finish up in dead-end schools, with no access to higher education and with limited jobs at the bottom of the employment pyramid. As Members of Parliament we deal with many such constituency cases.
      If we mean what we say about full integration for physically handicapped people, we must provide education and the social mix that occurs in ordinary schools for all but the most severely handicapped.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend has several times referred to physically handicapped people. The clause appears to apply to all handicapped people, including the mentally handicapped. Are they included in the argument?
      Mr. Hannam: The clause offers local authorities where reasonably possible the opportunity to provide for education in ordinary schools as well as in special schools. I was making the point that the most severely handicapped, those who are unable to mix in the ordinary schools, will still have to be provided for in special schools.
      We are calling not for the end of the important and excellent special schools but for the incorporation into ordinary schools of as many children as possible. This happens in other countries, such as the United States and Sweden. In 1885 a Royal Commission pointed the way towards integration,. Now we seem to be taking a step backwards.
      I accept that the Department of Education and Science has supported the desirability of ordinary schools classes for the handicapped throughout the years, but they are not attending such classes, as we see in our own areas. As the National Federation of the Blind has
      690
      pointed out, 97 per cent. of blind children and 42 per cent. of partially sighted children are educated in boarding schools and are therefore isolated from their homes and other children for most of the year.
      Subsection (1) aims to reverse the priority in the Education Act 1944, which asserts that special school provision is preferable for the categories which the Minister defines by regulation. That Act should have been amended to reverse that priority.
      I do not wish to decry the invaluable work done by our special schools. I have some of the best in my constituency. But paragraph 14 of Circular 2/75 from the Department said:
      "special schools should be regarded as providing a highly specialised form of education, designed to enable the handicapped child, whenever possible, to return to an ordinary school if this is considered beneficial."
      That is exactly what we propose.
      Subsection (2) allows the parent to insist upon education in an ordinary school unless that insistence is unreasonable—in other words, unless the degree of disability or lack of facilities mean that local education authorities could not, to the child's advantage, place him or her in an ordinary school. Many parents will prefer their child to be educated at a local school rather than having to go to a special boarding school, possibly many miles away. I know of parents having to give up their home and job and move to other areas to place their child in a special boarding school.
      The crux of the matter is whether the local school is suitable. The purpose of the clause is to impose pressure to make as many local schools as possible suitable through the provision of special units. The Minister may say that that is now happening. Therefore, I hope that she will accept the purpose of the clause and agree that the wording of Clause 1 may not be in the best interests of disabled children.
      Progress towards full integration is likely to be inhibited by the Bill, because it enshrines the concept of special, segregated education for disabled children. That is contrary to the whole purpose of our approach to disabled children's education over the past few years.
      Although it will become illegal within the State system under the Bill to select

      691
      a group of non-disabled children for special educational treatment, the Bill will legitimise such selection in respect of disabled children. Under the present wording, local education authorities will be obliged to provide comprehensive education for all non-disabled children but will continue to escape that obligation for disabled children. They are the very children who need to be taken into normal surroundings, among other children. It is right to avoid having to close existing special schools, but that can be done without creating all the uncertainties which this legislation is creating.
      The all-party Disablement Group, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman and I am secretary, received the strongest representations on the clause. If the Minister does not accept it or the principle behind it, I hope that the House will show its support for the worthwhile cause of integration, which could save a great deal of money. The hon. Gentleman referred to the suggestion that there would be sharply increased public expenditure if the clause were approved. I disagree with that suggestion. It is the usual argument that we hear when we propose the implementation of a new system.
      A recent answer by the Minister showed that 11,471 children were on the waiting lists for special schools. Therefore, there is a vast amount of public expenditure to be incurred if those numbers are to be accommodated. To accommodate them in ordinary schools through the provision of special units, stage by stage, would result in lower public expenditure rather than the increased expenditure needed to provide special schools.
      I hope that the House will accept the case so ably put by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that we shall help intelligent and enterprising handicapped children to receive the education they deserve among normal children, close to their families, and not miles from home in special boarding schools. We support the clause wholeheartedly.
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I welcome the clause, though I am a little embarrassed at being told that we do not need it because the powers already
      692
      exist. If they do, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to use them rather more forcefully than in the past.
      Over the years Ministers have put their arms round me and said "You are doing a great job, but—". My hon. Friend is probably the most attractive Minister ever to put her arm round me and say "We are doing our best". May I say "Margaret, bach, really do your best this time"? Unless we receive some firm promises, some of us will have to be anti-Government. My hon. Friend has a chance to put the record straight. I say to her "If the powers exist, use them. If you have to kick a few local authorities, kick them. If they do not carry out the law of the land, take the powers unto yourself."
      For too long we have talked in the House about integration. Every time I speak on the subject I talk about the double disadvantage, that of the child who is disabled and who starts to receive education late. If there is one thing a disabled child needs, it is the opportunity to receive education early, not late, but it tends to be late. We tend to leave the disabled children outside our society.
      I must say regretfully that under successive Governments the Department of Education and Science has not been very good. Its efforts have been disastrous because it has never recognised the need for integration. The situation is even more tragic for the blind. We do not integrate them and they are left outside our society. When we educate them, we split them into two groups—the able and the not-so-able blind. That is a sad reflection upon our society.
      The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made a profound case for integration and the avoidance of double-handicap. The Department must accept that it has enough power, that it can exert enough mandatory pressure, to insist upon integration being carried even further.
      I can never understand why architects must build steps. The architect seems to say "Unless I have steps, it is not a building." The disabled child, the grandfather who cannot walk very well and the mother who wants to push a pram to school, have the right to access. Why

      693
      on earth do we ever allow buildings to be built without the Ministry first checking whether there is access? The Ministry simply stamps the seal of approval on them, and that causes me great anxiety
      5.0 p.m.
      The problem goes right through education. Perhaps we should not refer to the new clauses that have been selected or rejected, but the older disabled child who, because of a lack of mobility, cannot attend university because there are no facilities has to take a second-rate grant. We treat our disabled as second-class citizens right down the line. If they have the intellectual capacity to go to university and are accepted, they get the mandatory grant, but if that university cannot accept them because of access problems, they have to rely upon a local authority deciding to give them perhaps £120 a year. That is the double handicap that they face all the time. The Ministry has the power to insist that any disabled youngster from the age of 5 to 21 be able to compete on equal terms.
      I am not a sentimentalist. People sometimes ask me "What are you doing in this sphere?" If at the end of the day the all-party group succeeds in turning disabled people into income tax payers, it will have done its job. It starts with education. If the Ministry has the power but pussyfoots around, the Government must not be surprised if some hon. Members on the Back Benches become a bit stroppy now and then.
      The Minister has assured us that the power exists. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and, if I may call him so, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) of the all-party group and I are saying that we should withdraw the new clause if the Government will reveal the extent to which they are prepared to bare their teeth to those institutions that will not make the necessary provisions.
      I admit that the clause goes too far, but I shall push it unless the Ministry accepts its responsibility. People such as Mr. Milligan, who works with the blind, and Peter Large, who is connected with the disabled, are saying "On the basis of our experience, every child must be given the chance of full-time education in an integrated community. They do not want segregation and they do not
      694
      want to be treated differently. If the powers exist, the Ministry must enforce them". Before we decide whether to vote on the new clause, I want to see whether the Minister can give us some hope.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I shall not oppose the new clause, because I feel too much out of date on the subject, but I confess to a feeling of astonishment.
      In the 1950s I started the first all-party group in the House for disabled children. Mr. Hilary Marquand was chairman and had been a Minister of Health in the Labour Government. With an active team from both sides of the House, we worked for several years for precisely the opposite of the aims of the new clause. We pressed Departments for money and special schools. After about three years of good work, Hilary Marquand told me that we could disband the committee because we had the special schools for which we had been working. That is now out of date and I suppose that we were then doing a bad thing, but I have my doubts.
      Obviously, if a child's handicap is not great, it is best that he should be in the same school as ordinary children, but there comes a point when it is better for the child to go to a special school. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who said that handicapped children did not want to be treated differently. But deaf and blind children must be treated differently. One cannot teach them in the same class as sighted and hearing children because it is not practical. I have never been a schoolmaster or a teacher in a special school, but I understand that there are special skills, methods and techniques that are advantageous to children who lack sight or hearing.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has said and I appreciate his depth of feeling, but there have been changes since he was involved in the interests of handicapped children. The technology of communication has moved a long way and it can be used in the

      695
      classroom. Teachers of the blind want to specialise but to be integrated into ordinary schools.
      Mr. Bell: I accept that I must be somewhat out of date, since there has been such a remarkable shift of opinion. In the 1950s virtually everybody said that the duty of the State and local authorities was to make special provision with specially trained teachers to give handicapped children the education that they could not receive in an ordinary school. My interest began as a result of pressure from constituents whose children were falling out of the bottom of ordinary schools. Parents were troubled and said that their children needed special schooling but could not obtain it.
      One must bear in mind the psychology of the child. Some will accept a special position in an ordinary school, but others will react differently. I throw this out only in a tentative way, but one must also consider that if one takes into an ordinary school all those on whom the scale just tips on the balance, one will be left with only the low grade children in special schools. In that way the cross-fertilisation between the higher grade and lower grade handicapped children will be lost. Those are difficult matters to evaluate and balance. Surely the right solution is to allow local authorities discretion to be exercised in the light of parental preference.
      I do not want to put on strong pressure. The hon. Member for Eccles said he wanted to do that. He talked about kicking the local authorities. I do not feel so sure about the matter, having been on one tack and then having listened with understanding and sympathy to the opposite point of view.
      I do not oppose the new clause because of the 15-year lapse in my involvement with the subject. I shall not be dogmatic. There must be a balance of argument. Discretion by the local authorities should be quite wide and there is probably room for different prescriptions and emphases to be tried out. If this is a new theory which various interested people have advanced in the light of their personal experience, I should like to see how it works in practice in local authority schools before putting a half-
      696
      nelson on local education authorities to adopt these new proposals.
      The hon. Member for Eccles said that he thought the new clause went too far. I imagine that is probably the case, but we are having a useful and interesting debate on the priniciple and the wording is not so important. I suggest that we should advance in this direction, but let us do so cautiously, keeping an open mind lest we should push the principle too far towards its logical conclusion.
      Mr. Mike Noble: I rise with some diffidence in view of the contribution made to the cause of the disabled by the majority of those who have spoken in the debate. I am aware of the courage and leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and his work for the disabled is recognised throughout the country. Last year my hon. Friend came to my constituency and disabled people travelled miles to meet him and to receive inspiration from being able to talk to him. I also recognise the work done in this respect by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives and aspirations behind the new clause, which my hon. Friends support.
      My experience of education for disabled children in ordinary and special schools is limited to the period when I frequently visited schools as chairman of an education committee, and to the period when my mother worked in a school for the disabled in Hull. That was a fine modern school—perhaps one of the best in the country.
      The needs of the disabled child are apparent and they are not very dissimilar from those of the normal child. Like all children, disabled children need a great deal of care and attention. I noted on my visits to the schools the attention, devotion and love of the staff for the disabled children, and the tremendous care they took in looking after their needs, both physical and educational. Like all children, disabled children need to lead as normal a life as possible, but we must recognise that additional resources are needed to enable them to do that. I welcome any attempt to move resources in that direction. For these reasons I have great sympathy with the new clause.

      697
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that the essential feature of disability was loneliness, and that is an experience that only those who are disabled can understand. The child who stands on the touchline at the football match must be lonely because he is watching his peers carrying out an activity which he is unable to carry out. My hon. Friend must frequently feel the same kind of loneliness, and it is that loneliness that we on both sides of the House and all members of the community must seek to overcome. Is the clause the best way to do that? I accept the motives and wishes of the supporters of the clause, but is it the best vehicle?
      5.15 p.m.
      The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) moved in this direction, but he perhaps erred on the side of caution. I want to see a little more speed. The real argument is not simply whether we can allocate resources: it is how we can best use the resources we allocate. That is one of the key questions.
      The clause provides that a local authority—
      "shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent".
      That makes it mandatory for the children to be moved into the State system. In my constituency there is a school which is several storeys high. How can a disabled child who is sent to that school, in which the laboratories are on the top floor, become integrated into the system and take advantage of the facilities provided? When I was chairman of the education committee, the authority had several vehicles specially equipped with lifts, and the vehicles had to run for several hours to bring disabled children to one central point to receive education in a special school. I doubt whether it would be possible to place those children in ordinary schools, given the resources of the local authority.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said on many occasions that when he allocates money to local authorities for educational purposes through the rate support grant, he has virtually no control over whether the money is spent on education and in which sector of education it is spent. On those grounds, I have grave
      698
      doubts whether the clause is the best way to deal with this problem.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I said that perhaps the clause went too far. I also said that there was the problem of access. Substantial numbers of disabled young people between 18 and 20 cannot go to university because there are no access facilities. They therefore have to go to a polytechnic. They receive a different rate of grant and they are thereby doubly impoverished.
      Mr. Noble: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That applies particularly when a new building is being put up. Architects put stairs in a building when there is no need for them. That is disgraceful. Discrimination in the giving of grants is also disgraceful.
      I come back to the essential feature of disablement, which is loneliness. I want to think of the disabled child, following the passage of the Bill, whose parents wish him to be educated in a certain comprehensive school. There is nothing to say that the parent shall not choose the school. In circumstances in which there is neither the special provision required for the disabled child nor provision for him to enjoy the educational facilities of the school because language laboratories and so on cannot be reached, that disabled child will suffer an entirely different kind of loneliness and a more formidable loneliness than he would if he were in a special school.
      I understand that the Warnock Committee is looking into resources. We hope that the Warnock Committee will report very soon and that the Government will give the support to the needs of disabled children that they have given to adults through the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The provisions of that measure have spread through local authority work.
      We want a commitment from the Government that the Warnock Committee will be encouraged to produce its findings as quickly as possible, and that the Government will then enter into discussions with local authorities to ensure that they are pursued. If necessary, we hope that the Government will introduce

      699
      legislation to ensure that they are pursued.
      There is a great deal of sympathy with what lies behind the new clause, but laudable though the motives are, it is not the best vehicle for pursuing the essential needs of disabled children.
      Mr. Clement Freud: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the education of those suffering from some disability or handicap takes place as far as possible in a normal school environment. The essence of equality of opportunity is to treat people equally unless there are obvious rational and positive grounds for discriminating against them. That is the principle that should apply to educational provision.
      Since the 1921 and 1944 Acts there have been too great a tendency to think that because a child has a disability or handicap, he should be set apart from his fellows and that his education should automatically be segregated from that of his peers. I believe that the new clause is in line with the spirit of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee in so far as the emphasis should be on providing for special needs—while making any necessary discrimination—in ordinary schools.
      It is wrong to separate disabled and handicapped children and their parents by bundling the children away deep in the countryside in remote Victorian special schools. Obviously those suffering from severe disabilities, mental disorders or deafness must be exceptions, but in other instances the gain in education specialism must be measured against the loss of social balance and the integration that is necessary.
      Special schools often require a strong social programme to enable the child to adjust to the community from which he has been segregated for the duration of his education. We need to provide more generously. It is to be demanded of local education authorities that if the new clause is accepted they will make the necessary specialist provision. At the same time they must receive adequate resources from central Government to make that provision.
      We should also recognise the social gain that integration will provide. It is
      700
      a prime factor, but one that has been neglected. It has been pretty reliably said that approximately 80 per cent. of physically handicapped pupils could be educated in ordinary schools. Of course, that would entail some fairly major physical alterations to buildings. However, we must throw into the balance the educational gain that would arise from such a move.
      There is strong evidence to suggest that the physically handicapped do not attain their full potential because the unnecessary segregation that takes place creates its own cycle of deprivation. The physically handicapped may become needlessly educationally handicapped. It is in this area that the new clause will help. About 50 per cent. of the mildly educationally subnormal population could be accommodated in ordinary schools. The delicate child given adequate medical support, could enjoy the fruits of a full and integrated environment. It cannot help the maladjusted child to adjust to his family's surroundings if he is closeted away. Therefore, Liberals support the new clause as a refreshing and welcome change in emphasis.
      We have a few slight reservations. Although many children with disabilities will be able to be educated in ordinary schools in the main stream of life, resources will have to be devoted to cater for their special needs. We believe that special units should be adjacent to or attached to ordinary schools to allow for some degree of integration. It must be steadily remembered that if integration is at all possible, it should be attempted.
      We must recognise that in some cases the physically handicapped child cannot pursue the same physical programme as his peers. That is not to say that some participation in that programme would not have great value. I take issue with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) who talked about the loneliness of a kid standing on the touchline watching his peers play football. There could be some loneliness, but not if other kids are around to make the disabled child feel that support is almost as important as participation.
      That, of course, is something of a lie, but a beneficial lie. In the USA the most unlikely people become part and parcel of American football teams. If a girl

      701
      has big busts or can do the splits, she becomes an integral member of an American football team.
      Integration achieves a dual purpose: there is the benefit that handicapped kids derive from being in proximity with normal children, and there are also many children whose natural violence is curbed by the compassion conjured up by having handicapped children near them.
      Sir George Sinclair: I wish to support the hon. Gentleman's concept. There can be great value in the relationships between the physically handicapped and the able-bodied. There is evidence of the two-way benefits of able-bodied young people sharing activities with the physically handicapped young people. I must declare an interest as I am a foundation trustee of PHAB, the movement for the Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied. The work of that movement underlines exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying about developing richer relations by association.
      Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We do not often see eye to eye in this harmonious fashion.
      It is exceedingly important to remember that there is benefit to both the well children and the handicapped. There is an awful danger that if handicapped children are segregated their ambition will be virtually nil. It is seeing well children behaving as they do that gives the handicapped child not jealousy but a tremendous incentive to emulate those kids to the best of his ability.
      In my local authority great care is taken before a child is sent to a special school. But there are local education authorities which take the easy option. They find, if a child is not that simple to teach in an ordinary school and there are school places in special establishments, that it is easier to say "let the child go".
      I understand what is likely to happen at the end of this debate. The Government will say, as they are so used to saying, that all this proposed legislation is totally unnecessary, that they already have power to do everything that the new clause seeks to do. If they have those powers, of what are they afraid? I accept that the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a model of consistency and
      702
      honourability, may well believe every word she says.
      5.30 p.m.
      I am reminded of the occasion when Mr. Barnum was informed of the death of the man who was shot out of a cannon in his circus. He said "This is grave news. It will be difficult to find a man of the same calibre." I do not think that it will benefit us at all when in this context the Minister says in reply to a subsequent debate "Ah, but that promise was made by another person at another time." Sadly, I feel that if a Government spokesman says "We already possess legislation to achieve this end" his successors in another Government will not be bound to take the same view.
      That is why I believe that the clause should become part of the Bill—a Bill of which none of us is particularly proud because it is much more a Bill for compulsion than for education. However, if the House agrees to the new clause, there will at least be one little part of the Bill of which we can be justly proud.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I believe that our capacity to implement these proposals at present does not exist.
      As a teacher for most of my adult life, I first came into contact with the problems of special school children and handicapped children not only on the "shop floor", as it were, but because many children were sent from ordinary schools to special schools. As a member of the National Executive of the NUT, I became a member of the Special Schools Advisory Committee. When I went on that committee, I realised how little knowledge I had of the problems of the handicapped. I met teachers from hospital schools who faced enormous problems—problems of which up to that stage I knew nothing and about which I had to learn.
      I was chairman of the Primary School Advisory Committee and understood the generality of problems, but when I became a member of the Special Schools Advisory Committee I came face to face with the problems of the multiple-handicapped. I spoke to teachers who worked with those children and, like my

      703
      hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), they were utterly dedicated to their pupils and constantly discussed better ways of carrying out their tasks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is an internationally-known figure in this sphere, and he and many other hon. Members are experts in this area of activity.
      The point repeatedly made in this context is that handicapped children should not be segregated from other children—in other words they should not be made to feel apart from others. This view has now been accepted throughout the teaching world. The only dispute that takes place among teachers relates to the methods of bringing handicapped children into the work of ordinary children. Teachers in the special schools believe that handicapped children should be among other children, and yet difficulties are discovered because of the nature of the handicap of many of the children.
      We must not make light of the grave difficulties that we shall face if we implement this new clause. There are many special schools in the city of Sheffield. There is a great expert in the teaching of the blind called Mr. Frederick Tooze. He constantly visits Africa and advises the authorities there on how to deal with their problems in a country where there is a great deal more blindness than exists in this country. Mr. Tooze is the distinguished head teacher of a local school for the blind and he took the initiative of mixing his blind children with children in the nearby comprehensive school.
      Naturally, there is now an attempt to organise work of this kind on a central basis. It will involve the installation of equipment such as lifts in schools. Furthermore, I recently spoke to one of the leaders of the blind teachers, Mr. Milligan, and I found myself in almost total agreement with his views.
      This debate has given a welcome airing to this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) asked the Minister about the Warnock Committee. I hope that action on the recommendations of that Committee is taken more quickly than action that was taken over the findings of the Bullock Committee on the subject of reading.
      704
      Although I find myself in total agreement with the sentiments behind the clause, I regret that I shall have to vote against it. I do so because I believe that we lack the ability to carry out the implications that lie behind these proposals. My hon. Friends can rest assured that I am with them in their sentiments, but I am agraid that I cannot support proposals of this kind at the present time.
      Mr. George Gardiner: I contribute to this debate with some trepidation, as I have to follow four speakers whose experience in serving those who suffer from disability I acknowledge. We always listen with great respect to any words from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the subject. Certainly, I understand the point he made initially in his remarks, when he anticipated that he might feel some irritation of hearing new voices raised on this issue which had not contributed previously. It is a natural feeling. Nevertheless I urge him to accept that for all of us there is a first time in these matters. As a Member of Parliament, particularly a new one, one undergoes a variety of changing experiences, and not infrequently one changes one's mind about things.
      I confess readily that a year ago I would have accepted the conventions of the general need to educate children suffering from disability in separate establishments. The fact that I no longer hold that view is directly attributable to my experience as a Member of Parliament. I have been invited to meet societies and bodies which serve those who are disabled, and in my constituency particularly bodies catering for those who suffer from mental disabilities.
      I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) were right to stress that the benefits resulting from bringing handicapped and non-handicapped children together are not confined to one group but are shared between them. It is important to emphasise that benefit does not go exclusively to the handicapped. I speak with limited experience here. Whenever as a Member of Parliament I am invited to visit functions arranged for disabled children, I make a habit of taking my

      705
      own children to it, and as a result they are, I hope, better educated in these matters, or are becoming so, than they otherwise would be.
      At the moment we must recognise the great difficulties involved in bringing handicapped and non-handicapped children together in education. In some cases the disability suffered is far too severe to permit that. In others there is a need for such special services that they can be supplied only in limited locations. Sometimes there are problems arising from extreme immobility of disabled children. There are great difficulties, and I recognise that we cannot go overboard about the arguments expressed so clearly by speakers earlier in this debate.
      A report by Her Majesty's inspectors in 1974 said that if integration were to have any real meaning, there must be a sufficient proportion of activities of a school in which the handicapped child could participate on equal terms, could feel a sense of achievement, and earn the respect of other children. These are pretty stern conditions, but unless there is a reasonable chance of their being met and frequently there is, we must recognise that in some cases integration can do more harm than good.
      We are trying to find the right balance between the two difficulties and the two needs. The motive behind the new clause is to win recognition that the balance is shifting and that this should be reflected in our educational provisions.
      The balance is shifting because the frontiers of what can be achieved are shifting all the time. This is the result of patient research and advances in technology. For example, in Croydon partially deaf children, for whom hitherto it was assumed that special schools would be essential, are sent to selected secondary schools which have special units attached to them. In these schools partially deaf pupils can join in many ordinary lessons by virtue of the fact that the teacher wears a small microphone of sorts around his or her neck and is able to transmit what is being said to the partially deaf pupil. This is an example of how the frontier is shifting to allow greater integration of disabled pupils in normal schools than we would have considered possible a few years ago.
      706
      It is not always possible of course, and the difficulties are particularly great when we come to the category of mentally handicapped children. If it is not possible to integrate them properly in the educational processes, perhaps we could create within our schools arrangements and provisions for greater contact between handicapped and non-handicapped children.
      5.45 p.m.
      It has been said that what we have to do nowadays is not to give total concentration or attention to what this kind of pupil cannot do but to put rather more emphasis on what he or she can do in the company of schoolfellows. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) just referred to the great difficulty of the resources involved here, and we all know that it is not possible at the moment, or even in the foreseeable future, to do all that we want to do for this kind of pupil. Nevertheless, I interpret the motive behind the clause as pushing the Minister—if she needs pushing—into giving rather more impetus to this movement for greater and keener recognition of the part all local authorities can play in changing the balance and moving the frontiers towards a greater degree of integration.
      If there is a vote on this new clause, I shall support it, although, like the hon. Member for Hillsborough, I recognise in doing so that there are severe limits on what actually can be done to meet the requirements. But I must express the hope that the Minister will offer us the assurance we want so that it may be possible not to press the clause to a vote anyway.
      Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I must apologise for not having been here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in moving this new clause. I think that all the contributions made today have pointed towards the great advancement of the last 10 years in enabling children with some handicap to involve themselves more closely in the whole of society than was hitherto thought possible, or even desirable.
      Obviously there is grave concern among those parents whose children are severely handicapped and not yet in special schools. About 11,500 of these

      707
      children are on waiting lists for special schools. But there are some children in special schools who could move into more general education.
      The difficulty that we make for ourselves in legislation and in its interpretation by local authorities is that we are inflexible to the changes and developing abilities of disabled children. I have had a little experience of these matters and I know that very often the things that five years ago were said of a small child to be impossible are now highly likely, given the right impetus and encouragement.
      Riding for the disabled is not strictly an educational pursuit. Those who said that physically disabled children should be taught to ride horses were seen as crackpots at the beginning, but I am glad that we persevered, because the joy that that recreational and, in a sense, educational experience brings to disabled children has to be seen to be believed. It is not just a question of riding or even of sport, but of the gradual building up of this ability, usually best learned in the company of able-bodied children, to do a task which was hitherto regarded as impossible.
      When the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and I visited one of the rehabilitation centres in Germany, we were delighted to see the use of tactical reading apparatus which allows blind people to read computer print-outs. This sort of technological aid, though not yet widespread, is bringing a new facility to people who hitherto could not communicate because of the lack of one of the senses. This is more true in education now than ever before. When the able-bodied child sits alongside the handicapped child, both gain immeasurably from the experience.
      This experience of normal relationships in education does as much for able-bodied children as it does for the handicapped. I have seen a handicapped child who had developed a sense of expression in mathematics and algebra teaching an able-bodied child who could not grasp the Xs and Ys and simultaneous equations. One learns from this sort of experience how helpful and welcome education integration can be.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that he thought that special schools were required, and he could not understand why, with the passage of time, the tendency had been for them not to be needed. He made a valuable point. However, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I have seen organisations throughout the world in which the handicapped child can produce work, do sums, type and print faster than the able-bodied child. That shows why these children can be integrated, and one can see how technology fills the gap.
      Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Eccles and I were equally amazed when we saw thalidomide children totally bereft of arms riding bicycles at a fast and dangerous rate of knots, by our adult standards, in a school in Germany. But those children would probably have been safer on the open road than non-handicapped children because of what they had learned about balance. The hon. Member is correct in what he says about the advancement of technology in the last few years.
      But there is an even more important reason why we should support the clause. For years we keep children in special schools. When they reach the age of 16 they are unable to find special adult training centres to take them. They have been in special schools and have therefore not learned integration, and for that reason they cannot go into one of the ordinary technical colleges or colleges of further education. If they surmount the problem of gaining access to the building, they are still faced with the problem of adjusting to the different pace in the new surroundings—it may not be faster, but it will be different from that in the special schools.
      I therefore see handicapped children as requiring much more individual attention with concentration on their individual aptitudes. There will always be a minority of severely handicapped children for whom special education is necessary. But there are a growing number who will gain a great deal from and give a great deal to their fellow able-bodied and able-minded pupils when they learn alongside them.

      709
      We know from the community service volunteers who have worked in special schools how much they have learned about teaching from seeing these children adapt to working in a one-to-one relationship either with an able-bodied child or with a teacher. It is to give them the chance of a normal relationship and to stop this segregation which, unless we try to integrate them now, will be with them in some form for the rest of their lives, that we put the new clause forward.
      We must learn from the experience of other countries which have tried integrated education and found it beneficial for both handicapped and non-handicapped children. It has certainly proved beneficial for the social development of those children.
      I have one reservation about the clause. It concerns subsection (2) which deals with the situation where a parent is unable to be found, is unable to give consent, or withholds consent unreasonably for the child to go to a special educational centre. I believe that an appeal procedure must be built into this provision. Whether the other appeal procedures would cover this matter I cannot say, but the question who will have the final decision remains unanswered.
      I hope, however, that the clause will become a part of what to me is otherwise an unacceptable Bill.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for moving the new clause. It would appear from the debate that it commands fairly widespread support on both sides of the House. It would, however, be unfortunate if in our enthusiasm for its intentions we ignored some of the difficulties in the drafting. Take subsection (2), which states:
      "If a local education authority decides that a child requires special educational treatment, they shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent unless the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or is withholding his consent unreasonably."
      That sounds splendid, but we should bear in mind that the shock of having a handicapped child can stay with the parents thoroughout the child's school career.
      710
      Parents may be anxious to send a child to a special school, but not because they wish to push it away from them—although it would be foolish of us to get on our high horses and say that such action would be deplorable. We must recognise that there are great problems in dealing with handicapped children in the home. Every effort should be made by education authorities to provide integrated education, but there are problems in the construction of subsection (2). I hope we shall not be told that the Government already have the necessary powers. If they have, that is a condemnation of them and all previous Governments.
      There was only one Press release issued by the Department on this subject between the first half of 1975 and the first half of 1976. It was called "Discovering children who need special education. A better deal for handicapped children and their parents." I am aware that the Department has an extremely wide brief, but that Press release was one fewer than the two devoted to the appointment and subsequent resignation of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) as PPS to the Minister.
      Other Press releases have included those on an export licence suspended for an English Great Helm, the Secretary of State's visit to European science research centres, the first report of the APO conference, the use of ionising radiators in educational establishments, the report of a working party on the experimental manipulation of the genetic composition of micro-organisms and reports on the importance of links between industry and education and on school leavers entering dead-end jobs. I am not saying that the fact that only one Press release was issued on the subject of disabled children in that 12-month period means that the Department does not take the problem seriously enough, but one might almost be drawn to that conclusion.
      We must do more than simply try to provide these children with parity. I hope that we shall follow the prayer:
      "No less precious is the child who speaks in a halting voice, who walks with a slower tread, whose hand must always rest in yours, whose eyes your eyes must be. No less precious is the child who will always look to you for sustenance."
      When these children look to this House for sustenance, I hope they will not look in vain.
      Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), whose personal commitment in the education of the disabled and handicapped is well known.
      I support the new clause. In the last two decades, there has been a change in society's approach to the disabled away from isolation towards integration. We have seen this in housing, where most new developments include provisions for the disabled; in health, where the trend is away from hospitalisation towards treatment in the community, as out-patients or within the family with support from community workers; and in social security, with the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. All these are attempts to integrate the disabled within the community. The new clause seeks to extend this welcome principle to the education of children who, in the past, have been excluded from some other provisions, particularly the mobility allowance.
      From my experience, I find that provision for disabled children is fairly patchy. When I was the manager of an infants' school in London, there was good provision because the headmaster had a disabled child and there was a quota for disabled children in the school. We should try to standardise good practice.
      There is concern among the immigrant community that their children are shunted off to special schools for no good reason. The new clause would reassure them that every possible step was taken before their children were sent to these schools.
      I welcome the new clause because it is much easier for disabled persons if they have been at school with able-bodied children and it is right that able-bodied children should help and understand the problems of disabled children at school. However, I should inject a note of caution. Some children will always have to go to special schools, and there are some disabilities which it is important to identify early and for the children affected to go to special schools. Autistic children, for instance, would come into this category.
      Even if the new clause is passed, no one will wish teachers not to try to
      712
      identify the children who need special schools. We do not want them to think that everyone is trying to get all disabled children into ordinary schools. The argument on resources is not quite as clear-cut. If more provision is made within ordinary schools for disabled children, there will be more places available in special schools.
      There is no conflict between what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was doing in the 1950s and what we are doing now. The children for whom he was fighting would never have gone to ordinary schools. They are not the subject of the new clause. We are talking about children who could go to ordinary schools, thus releasing places in the special schools for the severely disabled. We are taking a step in the right direction in our approach to the problems of the disabled. There is a change in the balance, in co-ordination with the changes we are seeing in health, housing and social security.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall refer only to New Clause 17 and I shall be brief, because I have not brought the prospectuses of the Crown School, the Needwood School for the Partially Deaf or the Loxley Hall School for the Disabled in my constituency, all of which do splendid work for disabled children.
      I confess that I am not filled with enthusiasm for the new clause. That is not to say that I do not have the utmost regard for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who tabled it, or for his hon. Friends who do so much for disabled people, particularly disabled children. Nor does it mean that I have anything but the highest regard for my hon. Friends who give the lie constantly and strongly to any who say that the Conservative Party has no caring face.
      Equally, I do not dissent from the general proposition that it is better to integrate disabled children among able-bodied children than to separate them and cause the sort of hardship and distress to which my hon. Friends have referred.
      I am concerned that the new clause seeks to change the emphasis from the automatic sending of disabled children to special schools unless it is impracticable to do so to the automatic sending

      713
      of these children to ordinary schools unless it is impracticable to do so. The common denominator is what is practicable. That denominator will not change simply because we change the emphasis in practice. Those who are responsible for allocating to schools will still have to ask themselves the same question "Is this child sufficiently disabled to warrant being sent to a disabled school, or is this child one who will benefit more from being sent to a school which will direct its attention to the specific disability?"
      I cannot see that by changing the emphasis we shall in any way change the practical decision which is made by the social services departments in any county. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South shares the county of Staffordshire, which has a high proportion of disabled. It is a fact that the East Staffordshire district, which I represent in the constituency of Burton, has a higher proportion of disabled than even the rest of Staffordshire, and it is a matter which has caused me great concern in the time that I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament. It is a problem which as I see it will not, in its practicalities, be seriously changed or improved as it faces those who allocate these schools.
      I do not speak against the clause but merely say that I am unenthusiastic about it. I should like the Minister, if she accepts the clause, to be aware of the particular danger which might result from it. She may say "The emphasis now being changed, I must direct a greater proportion of the resources to ordinary schools, so that they will be able to satisfy the demand which is currently being satisfied by special schools." But, the resources being limited, as they undoubtedly are, there may be some resources which now go to the special schools which would no longer go to them.
      It is not just a matter—I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said—of the simple reallocation of resources. The schools do different jobs, and it may be very difficult for any county council to be able to ask a Minister, in pursuing the object of the clause, to say "Let us keep things as they are. Of the £100,000 we are now able to spend on schools for disabled children in this country, let us maintain the level of payment to the special schools and do noth-
      714
      ing to increase the money which goes to the ordinary schools for the provision of disabled children."
      I would be very concerned if the effect of implementing the clause were to be to to take away any of the resources which are now being made available, or which ought to be made available in the future, to special schools.
      What I am saying, in short, is that what matters is not where the emphasis is placed. It is where the resources are directed that will matter in practice. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give a general undertaking—of course, it cannot be too specific—that if she adopts the clause, as seems to be the feeling of the House, she will not take away resources which are currently being allocated or ought to be allocated in the future to particular special schools and, as it were, redirect them to ordinary schools. If that is done, the end may not be to the benefit of those who are perhaps more seriously disabled and who should have a special claim upon special schools.
      If the Minister can give that sort of undertaking, I for one would welcome it and would perhaps feel a little more enthusiastic about the clause.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Moore: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I very warmly endorse the clause. I accept the very sound reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
      I say to the Minister that I have, fortunately, within the London borough of Croydon, and specifically within my own constituency, quite close experience of the sort of situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) concerning the problems of integrating specially handicapped deaf children into a local authority school.
      Within my constituency, the Kingsley Deaf Unit is fully integrated into Kingsley Primary School, a local education authority school. It does an incredibly good job and carries out in practice today many of the things that my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side were talking about. I not only warmly endorse the clause but also strongly suggest that this is a very specific area which could be examined to see how well it works in practice.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I first apologise to the House because inevitably I shall be rehearsing many of the arguments that hon. Members have already covered in their speeches.
      Perhaps the most notable feature of the debate has been that every speaker has expressed complete sympathy with the intention behind the new clause. I am certainly no exception. But I am first concerned—I apologise to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and other hon. Members who dealt with the point—as to whether we need the clause. Secondly, I am even more concerned about the effect of the clause as drafted, as opposed to the effect which was intended by hon. Members who tabled it.
      If we turn for the moment to the Bill itself, as opposed to the existing Education Acts, there is nothing whatever in the Bill as drafted which prevents the integration of children with disabilities into ordinary schools. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and other hon. Members regarded the reference in the Bill to special schools as enshrining the system of special schools into our law and regarded this as a step backwards. That is innacurate. The fact is that, if we had not had such a reference to special schools in the Bill, the Bill would have ruled them out of existence. The reference in the Bill does not enshrine them in our system but permits their continued life.
      No one in this debate has said that all special schools should be abolished. Indeed, almost everyone has indicated a need for the continuation of some special schools. That part of the Bill, therefore, is not in any sense a step backwards but is a recognition of existing reality and of something which hon. Members have recognised as valuable.
      As I see it, the sponsors of the clause feel that the emphasis on education for the disabled is at present weighted far too heavily towards education in special schools and that we should in this country, as in many others, be pursuing much more determinedly every possibility of integrating children into ordinary schools.
      On the first general point, I am most sympathetic to that basic approach, and, indeed, so is my Department. Clearly, however, given that we have at present a system—as many hon. Members have pointed out—which is dependent on
      716
      special schools, this is not a situation which we can simply reverse overnight.
      We are meeting groups of the disabled—people such as Peter Large and Martin Milligan. We are examining the possibility of setting up some pilot schemes of integration. We are investigating which local authorities may be willing to undertake the sort of pilot schemes of integration which I am sure many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate would wish to see. However, if these pilot schemes, small-scale though they might be, are to succeed—I am sure many hon. Members will feel that it is inadequate to say at this stage in the whole debate, and not just this debate, that we are looking towards pilot schemes—the most essential prerequisite is full and proper consultation with local authorities and, perhaps even more so, with the teachers who will be involved.
      I say in all sincerity to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that I fear that it would put at risk the acceptance of the whole principle of integration if we tried to rush into this matter in the way suggested in the new clause. I recognise that many hon. Members have fought for these reforms for many years and that it is perhaps almost offensive to them to talk about rushing into changes of this kind. However, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and other hon. Members that long though they have been complaining, like the rest of us, they are acquainted with the nature and duration of most political campaigns. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South must be well aware that he has not for as many years as he has been complaining had the support of the majority of educational opinion.
      It is a measure of the success of the campaign for which many hon. Members have fought that more and more people are coming to accept that integration is valuable and offers possibilities. But one cannot possibly say that because we have been advocating this for so many years we must now push forward in great haste; having convinced people and prepared the ground, obviously a practical start must at some stage be made.
      Secondly, not everyone who has spoken in the debate has appreciated just how far the precise wording of the clause—again, I differentiate between the wording

      717
      and the intention—shift the emphasis in education. As I have already said—I apologise to hon. Members who did not wish to hear me say it—it is a fact that integration is already possible under existing education law and under the Bill. However, the effect of the new clause, whatever its intention, is that disabled pupils should clearly be educated in an ordinary school, unless that school is specifically designated as unsuitable by the Secretary of State.
      This is almost a reversal of the existing situation. The hon. Member for Exeter recognised it as such when he called for such a reversal. Here it is that the misunderstanding arises. The hon. Gentleman calls for a reversal of the existing situation but then says, almost in the next breath, that what we need is step-by-step integration of children in schools by special selection and so on.
      The defect which arises in the new clause, as opposed to the policy, is that it is not a step-by-step new clause but an overnight, immediate new clause which would bring in an overnight reversal of policy of a kind for which we have neither the resources nor, I fear, the good will on the part of many authorities to implement. This is the danger in the new clause. I fear that we would be very unwise to attempt to bring about this kind of reversal by such an abrupt change in the law.
      The basis point is that it is not a change in the law that hon. Members need but a change in existing policy, and it is not only a change in existing and past policy in the Department of Education and Science for which they are asking but a change in the policy of local authorities and head teachers and in the policy and approach of schools. I must say to hon. Members, in a pure spirit of generosity, that I do not think they will bring about this change overnight if they succeed, as I hope they will not seek to to do, in carrying the new clause.
      Mr. Ashley: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, as I am sure the House does, but in order to further a change in the policy of local education authorities will she be good enough to consider issuing a circular advising local authorities about this policy of integration?
      Miss Jackson: What we are seeking to do at present is to discover what local
      718
      authorities are willing to do. We have consulted some of the organisations with which my hon. Friend is acquainted, which have suggested to us local authorities which they have found to be sympathetic and which they think would be willing to follow schemes of the kind we suggest. That is the line on which we are working. However, if it is thought that it would be helpful if we considered having a general discussion with local authorities, I shall certainly consider that point.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Has anything been done to find out the attitude of parents? I am a little surprised that it should be suggested that there is this pressure for the change. When I was especially interested in this subject, which was admittedly nearly 20 years ago, the pressure from parents was for special schools and not for integration.
      Miss Jackson: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has highlighted the sort of comments that I have been making. There is a great need to consult every group that is affected by this sort of proposal—the parents, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and, indeed, in many cases the children themselves. It may be that there will be some people who would prefer their children to go to a special school, but I do not see anything in the existing legislation, or, indeed, even in the new clause, which would suggest that integration would be compulsory—although I suppose that if the new clause were carried it might have something of that effect. However, I cannot imagine that it would be enforced over the wishes of parents. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Parents, too, have important views and there is a need for consultation here.
      I have not referred so far to the Warnock Committee, which, as many hon. Members have said, is at present examining education for the disabled. I am not merely resting the case for withdrawal of the new clause—as I hope—on the ground that we should await the report of the Warnock Committee. I wish to demonstrate that there are other more serious and sound grounds on which hon. Members should not seek to press the new clause. As the Committee exists, however, and is considering exactly the matters we are discussing, it might be a little unwise

      719
      actually to change the law in advance of its report, which I hope will be with us fairly soon, towards the end of the year.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: This is a rather important matter. We appreciate that there is no need for a change in the law and we know full well that my hon. Friend's Department does not spend money on aids for disabled children. There is a great problem to be faced. I can name 10 children who are severely handicapped and who need advanced electronic equipment to enable them to be educated and to take their place in our society and become independent.
      Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no real resources from which this equipment can be purchased? Does she realise that this equipment could be written off in about four years in their lives and that they could use it in perpetuity? Will she look at the whole provision of special equipment for the severely handicapped child and resources from which the money shall be provided? Will she give an assurance that her Department will change its mind about not spending money to enable children to be independent where local authorities cannot afford such equipment?
      Miss Jackson: I wish that my hon. Friend had raised that point with me previously, because it is not a point to which I had come prepared to reply. It is a major preoccupation in my Department at present that there are not resources for most of the things we wish to do, including spending money on special equipment for the disabled. This is not a field in which I have direct experience at present. If my hon. Friend will write to me, I shall inquire and ascertain the facts. If he will forgive my saying so, although it is a very valid and interesting point and certainly of great concern, it does not arise directly on the new clause.
      The second part of the new clause would strengthen the rights of parents to withhold consent for their child to be sent to a special school. Parents already have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend. It has been our experience that this is very rarely exercised because local authorities are increasingly—I think in almost every case—reluctant to send a child to a special school without the
      720
      active co-operation of its parents. It would be most unwise to do so. One cannot, however, differentiate the second part of the new clause from the first part, as being a part which is already being put into practice widely.
      In any case, we are rather unhappy about the wording of the second part of the new clause because it gives considerable scope for legal argument about how soon one can give up looking for a parent who, in terms of the new clause, cannot be found, or in determining what is meant by "incapable of giving consent." The second part of the clause is rather loosely drafted and would cause quite considerable difficulty.
      6.30 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) asked me for concrete evidence to show what we in the Department proposed to do in future to further the cause of integration. I have told him that we are looking forward to some pilot schemes of this kind. I agree entirely with the point made by him and by many other hon. Members in the debate that it is now for us in the Department and, indeed, for those in the local authorities to look for agreement and co-operation from everyone who would need to be involved in schemes of integration.
      I must suggest to my hon. Friend, however, and to other hon. Members who raised this point that, given the lack of progress in this direction, about which many hon. Members have complained, it is inevitable that we must make a start somewhere. I would suggest to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that this is such a delicate and sensitive area that it is absolutely vital that when we attempt experiments of this kind they must be successful. They must be firmly and solidly based. Nothing could be worse, and nothing could more harm the cause of those who seek to have integration in this country, than to rush into hastily and badly-devised schemes without the co-operation and assistance of those who must co-operate if the schemes are to work. Nothing could do more harm to their cause, nor would it do anything but harm to the unfortunate children who might be involved, than unsuccessful experiments.
      To sum up, the implication of the new clause is that virtually all handicapped

      721
      children should be educated in ordinary schools. As I have said, for many of these children that is indeed the right answer. It is the Government's policy, and it is the policy of many local education authorities, to move in that direction. Many handicapped children, particularly the partially sighted and the blind, could do well in ordinary schools if given adequate facilities, the right skilled teachers and the right atmosphere in which such experiments can thrive.
      Everyone who has spoken in the debate has expressed tremendous concern for the welfare of disabled children as well as tremendous concern for the establishment of successful schemes of integation. I share hon. Members' concern and their wish to see as much movement as possible and as quickly as possible in that direction, but the new clause is not the way to achieve it. It could harm the cause they seek to aid. It would be to the benefit of disabled children if the new clause were withdrawn.
      Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: We on the Opposition side of the House very much welcome this debate and we would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on taking the initiative with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in this matter and on his extremely interesting presentation of the case for the new clause.
      What the debate has shown, without a shadow of doubt, is that there is no monopoly of compassion or concern in this matter. We have had hon. Members from both sides of the House speaking with great authority on the subject. I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me if, in order to save time, I do not go through their speeches in detail, but merely express general appreciation of the contributions they have made.
      We all agree that education is of particular importance in relation to the disabled. We have not done enough in the past, but, on the other hand, we have done something. It is sometimes forgotten that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who in November 1973, when she was Secretary of State, appointed the Warnock Committee to look into the question of the disabled and the handicapped in relation to education. I look forward to the com-
      722
      mittee's report with a certain amount of trepidation, but at any rate it will be an interesting focus of discussion.
      We in the Conservative Party have set up a study group on this question, and it will be one of our principal concerns in the coming 12 months, either in Opposition or in Government, to develop our policy on special education.
      The issue which the new clause enshrines is an extremely difficult one to decide because there are passionate advocates on both sides of the question—those strongly arguing for special schools and those who equally strongly argue against them and who say it is vital that children should be educated in ordinary schools and that special schools should be reduced to a minimum or even got rid of altogether.
      The view in favour of special schools was expressed a short time ago by the London Head Teachers Association when it said:
      "It is difficult to discover the origins of the present allegedly favourable climate towards integration, other than a rather dubious egalitarianism based on little fact and no hard evidence."
      Those are strong words. I myself prefer the attitude which I expressed in the education debate in the House last year, when I said:
      "However, so far as possible, those with special needs should be educated in ordinary schools."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975, Vol. 901, c. 499.]
      I think that that is the general view which has been expressed from this side of the House during the debate.
      Even if one takes that view, there will always be a need for special schools. It is right that a tribute should be paid to their work and the work of the teachers in them. It is remarkable that those teachers, who really have the heaviest burden of all in the profession, are the least complaining.
      I remember visiting a special school for physically handicapped children in North Carolina during a visit to the United States where the children were looked after by the local nuns. They started the school rather by accident because somebody had left a physically handicapped child on the convent doorstep. The nuns took the child in, and from that the whole school grew up. I remember going through the school. It

      723
      also had a nursing section for the severely physically handicapped. The love that was shown to the children was remarkable.
      There was one child, a little boy, with a hydrocephalic head by whom, I am afraid, I was literally shocked. It was wonderful to see one of the nuns to whom the boy was not a monster or someone with a deformity. To her, he was a child. She picked up the little boy and kissed him and showed him love. That is an example of a special school doing what those who argue for the use of non-special schools want. The nun was treating the child as an ordinary child. That is what lies behind the advocacy of the use of ordinary schools. We all know examples in our constituencies of schools which have done this work. I have mentioned the school in my constituency that I recently visited, Woodlands, which has a magnificent reputation for the work that is being done.
      It is right to exempt special schools from the provisions of the Bill. Special educational treatment in special schools should go on. We have no objection to that, but it is consistent with that attitude also to support these other schools. One does not exclude the other.
      As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, the new clause seeks to change the emphasis made in the 1944 Act, which said in effect that those who were handicapped or disabled should be educated normally in special schools, unless there were indications to the contrary. As I take it, the hon. Member is turning that around, altering the balance, and saying that they should be educated in ordinary schools unless the disablement is so great as to need a special school.
      It is at this point that I was puzzled by the resistance to the new clause shown by the Under-Secretary. The hon. Lady seemed to be under the impression that the 1944 Act's set of priorities was still in force. But her Department has changed its policies on this. I take it that the new clause puts into effect, in sharp form perhaps, the practice of the Department. I remind the Minister of her own words on 12th April 1976, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mt. Edge) about blind children:
      724
      "My Department's view has long been that no handicapped child should attend a special school if his needs can be met by an ordinary school, and I am anxious to furuther this policy."—[Official Report, 12th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 382.]
      What on earth is the difference between the Under-Secretary and her hon. Friend? They seem to be in entire agreement.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I am sorry, but the hon. Member has clearly failed to understand the tenor of my speech. It disturbs me, much though I hope not to have to vote against the clause, that he should be suggesting that he is proposing to support it. Most of us in the House, and certainly those in the Chamber at the moment, agree that some far greater measure of integration than has been the case in the past is indeed taking place. Most of us at present in the Chamber certainly agree that a great deal more would be a good thing.
      But the point that I put to my hon. Friend and the point which I must put again to the hon. Member is that if the new clause were to be carried into law it would be an abrupt and extreme reversal of the existing situation which would place many handicapped children in schools and in circumstances which are totally unfitted to receive them. That would not be in the interests of the schools or of the children.
      6.45 p.m.>
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting point and it may or may not be correct, but it is not the point that the hon. Lady was making earlier. It is a different one. I am not attemting to misrepresent the hon. Lady, but the impression she gave us was that she was going backward away from the Department's policy rather than forward. If that is not so, I am glad to hear it and I shall not pursue the point.
      We also welcome that part of the new clause under which parents are brought in. That is in accordance with our philosophy of increasing parental influence in education and our belief that, if a child is to go to a special school, parental consent is required. That again reverses the present situation. I understand that at the moment a child can be withdrawn from a special school with the consent of the local authority. The parent can go to the Secretary of State. But the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is

      725
      bringing in the parent at an earlier stage, and I think that that is right.
      As the hon. Member said, a question of loneliness is involved in handicap. There is a profound need here to assuage inner loneliness as well as physical isolation. Those who are handicapped suffer from a spiritual loneliness, and the hon. Member rightly underlined this. That again is an argument for the ordinary school, because it leads to the understanding of others—in two ways.
      The first way is through the exchange which goes on within an ordinary school from which the unhandicapped child benefits as much as the handicapped child. It is part of the education of both and it is an exchange in this respect between equals. The second point is that what we are trying to do in society and what the educators are trying to do is to enable a handicapped person to live as nearly as possible a normal life. What more natural, therefore, if the aim of the education is to be integration into society, than to start that integration in the school itself and to face the problems which arise as early as possible?
      Of course, there must be a question of balance. The balance that one looks for is not only a balance between the needs of children who have to go to special schools and those who need help within the setting of an ordinary school, but a balance in the educational process itself, looking to a child not as a disablement category but as an individual, with individual needs and problems. That is the point made so strongly in the evidence of ILEA to the Warnock Committee.
      As the Under-Secretary said, we should do more. I agree, but we look to the Government in this respect to give an initiative. We can talk; the Government can act. I am glad to hear about the pilot schemes, but it is not really enough at this stage to be talking about pilot schemes. One of the unfortunate side effects of the cutting back of the nursery programme—I fully understand the economic reasons for doing so—is that it hits the handicapped child particularly hard. The handicapped child needs nursery education more, and profits from it more, than the unhandicapped child. It is the same with disadvantaged people in a poor area. The advantage of nursery education is that it is a means of indenti-
      726
      fying handicap earlier, and that is of extreme importance.
      Secondly, we should do more to help set up units for the disabled within ordinary schools. Thirdly, let us not forget the students, those who are in further, advanced and university education. The physically handicapped student needs help. As far as I can recall, only one college caters for them, Hereward College. We must face the fact that it is a very expensive investment, but it is doing quite good work.
      Could not the Department also do more in the technological field? That point was made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has done extremely important pioneer work in this field and has argued tirelessly for the greater use of technology. This is resisted by the bureaucrats. Bureaucracy is a state of mind, not an occupation. The bureaucrats in political parties—we are infested by them—will say "We cannot spend money on this. It would increase Government expenditure." The hon. Member is saying that in this case we really can have our cake and eat it, because we could have the greater help and could save money if only we spend the money we have intelligently, investing it in this technological field so that we get a big return.
      We are grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for raising this important subject and enabling us to have a long overdue debate on it. That has been a benecial side effect of this wretched Bill—the only beneficial side effect we have had. Nevertheless, we must be grateful for small side effects. We are in a dilemma over voting for the new clause. We do not wish to vote for voting's sake. I understood from what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that he had received assurances from the Under-Secretary on some action her Department was to take in return for the withdrawal of the new clause. What that arrangement is may be clear to the hon. Member, but it was not clear to us from the speech of the hon. Lady.
      I would not presume to give the hon. Gentleman advice about this. We favour the clause, but the hon. Gentleman has been its initiator and he is supported by hon. Members on this side. We shall be

      727
      content to abide by his judgment as to whether the concession he has obtained from the hon. Lady is sufficient to merit the withdrawal of the clause. He must judge that. If he judges that it should be withdrawn, we shall not press the issue to a Division. If he judges that it would be useful to have a Division on it, we shall certainly support him.
      Mr. Ashley: I greatly appreciate the considerate way in which my old sparring partner from Cambridge, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), has spoken with such sympathy and consideration that deafness in this Chamber is irrelevant. I much appreciate that. He has lost none of his old skill, and in fact has become more adept over the years. He is as silky and as skilful as ever, but with the hook at the very end: he should not be a Member of Parliament; he should be a fisherman. But he should really stay here because he is so good at his job. I warmly congratulate him.
      The nub of the issue is the assurances that I have received from Ministers. As I said in my opening speech, I have had discussion with every Minister in the Department of Education and Science, and we have had some very heated moments and some angry exchanges—as between colleagues, because the Ministers are anxious to do all they can for disabled people, as I am—and we have had difficulty in finding a point of agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it boils down to what a Labour Back Bencher may decide to do when faced with a situation of this kind.
      I have spoken of the loneliness of the disabled. No one but the profoundly disabled knows how lonely a disabled person is. People apart from his family and friends, really do pass him by in every situation. Therefore, he must face this situation within the community. This clause will do more to help the integration of such children in education than any other, which is one of the reasons why one supports it, but as the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows better than anyone, no one can seize a clause out of context and out of perspective.
      It so happens that the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled is present today. He knows better than
      728
      anyone how we have, between us, forced money from the Government to help disabled people over a very wide field. The Government are faced with a great economic crisis. I must recognise that, and although the Opposition believe this will cost very little, I believe it will demand more public expenditure. We must be frank and honest about this and face reality, and the fact that we must maintain or even cut public expenditure. Given the assurance of the Under-Secretary that she is sympathetic, and is willing to have private discussions and to meet local authorities—and those are the assurances that I and others have had—and bearing in mind the constraint on public expenditure and the expressions of good will, I feel the House ought really to allow withdrawal of this new clause and the amendments and I should appreciate it if that were done.
      I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's final words because if this clause is forced to a vote it may result in the party political animus which we have been able to keep away from the problems of the disabled. Hon. Gentlemen will have listened to the debate and learned a lesson from the fine speeches we have heard, and I would appreciate it if the motion were allowed to be withdrawn. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 31

      PARENT MEMBERSHIP OF GOVERNING BODIES
      '3.—(1) At least one quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school.
      (2) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to provide in accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State for the election to the body of managers of each county primary school and to the body of governors of each county secondary school maintained by them, of the one-quarter or more of the total number of the governors or the managers who are parents of pupils attending at the school by the parents of pupils attending the schools, and for a patent so elected ceasing to be on such body of managers or governors (as the case may be) on the parent ceasing to have a child attending as a pupil at that school but without prejudice

      729
      to the right of that parent to be otherwise appointed to that body of managers or governors.
      (3) Parent governors or managers shall be elected annually.
      (4) Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time New Clause No. 46 (Composition of governing bodies).
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The ecumenical interlude is over, and we return to our normal robust diversity of approach.
      The rôle of governors and managers of schools is a subject which is very much in the forefront of our minds because we are awaiting the report of the Taylor Committee on the rôle of governors and managers and how they should be selected. I am glad to see with us the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), because he it was who, in response to promptings from the Opposition, set up that committee and got this most important inquiry under way. It is fitting that the right hon. Gentleman should be here, however briefly, to see that his initiative is bearing fruit. It is no reflection on the present Secretary of State to say that we never cease to miss the right hon. Gentleman from our debates. They seem to have lost something since he departed, and not even the new Minister of State makes up for that.
      It is the policy of the Opposition to encourage parents to take a very full part in the education process and in our schools. As we pointed out yesterday, we want to have links between the maintained and independent sectors. We want to see a very wide exchange of facilities and ideas. We should like to see widely followed the example set by schools such as Wellington, which has generously cooperated with other schools in its area, so that what can be misrespresented as
      730
      privilege for a few can become for the benefit of all.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Heresy.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. and learned Friends call that "heresy". That must be based on the assumption that what he says is orthodoxy. If my hon. and learned Friend is orthodox, I am probably better off as a heretic.
      One of the benefits of schools in the private sector is that, by and large, they have strong and effective governing bodies. That is why in so many cases the schools are of a very high quality. As the Minister of State might put it, why should the devil have all the good tunes? Why should we not look at the private sector to see what good ideas are there and what is working there and apply them pari passu or even mutatis mutandis—
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Or "as the case may be".
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Or as the case may be—in the maintained sector.
      Why should not people have as much pride in their local comprehensive as they do, for example, in Eton or Harrow? I hasten to point out that I was educated at neither of those establishments. This relates to the wider social point that what is needed in our society more than anything else today is not great outpourings of public money on various projects. What is needed is something very much more important, which is the restoration of a sense of community in our society. We can achieve that with very little money, and here we can link up such matters as the preservation of small schools, the fostering of village schools and the strengthening within the maintained sector of boards of governors and managers so that they are effective in their activities and create a pride in their schools which will be of the greatest benefit to the children who will attend them. It will also help solve a lot of the problems of the impersonal, large comprehensive school if the headmaster or headmistress can be backed up by an active, interested and informed board of governors.
      From time to time during these debates we have talked about parental choice, and it is right that we should do so. We wish to extend parental choice. But of equal

      731
      importance is parental influence. Some people would say that it is even more important than parental choice.
      When I launched the now famous Parents' Charter at Stockport in 1974, it was greeted rapturously by the official spokesman of the NUT who, unfortunately, had got the party line wrong. He was immediately silenced and his statement was replaced by another statement from the Secretary, Mr. Fred Jarvis, who referred to the Parents' Charter as
      "the greatest cover-up since Watergate".
      Even for the extravagant language to which one is used in educational circles, that was hitting a new high—or low. It was the proviso about parental managers and governors which led to that statement of support and to a great many other statements of support which were not as evanescent as that of the official spokesman of the NUT.
      In the course of these debates, we have referred to various provisions of the Parents' Charter. I now wish to refer to the third provision, which comes after the amendment of Section 76 of the Education Act to give greater effect to parental wishes and after providing a system of appeals, which is point 2. We say:
      "Third, we will give parents the right to be represented on all school boards of managers and governors. The proportion of parents should be substantial. It could be between a third and half of the governing body. Parental governors should be elected by a postal ballot of all parents with children at a particular school. In this way parents will be enabled to take and show an interest in the schools which their children attend and secure improvements."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has been working during the past 12 months on giving flesh and blood to the skeleton of the Parents' Charter. The Opposition are deeply indebted to him for his work in this respect. He has been canvassing the opinions and getting the advice and help of those engaged in education. Shortly, we shall be in a position to put forward a revised version of the charter with very wide educational support.
      New Clause 31 is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It states that
      "At least one quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county
      732
      secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school."
      A minimum is laid down—not a maximum. There has been some discussion on the proportion of parents who should serve on a governing body. Some would fix the proportion as high as 50 per cent. Others want a smaller proportion. That matter may be the subject of continuing debate. It is important that there should be a reasonable proportion.
      I do not think that one parent governor should be isolated among officials, education experts, from which may heaven deliver us, and teachers—may they prosper. One parent alone faced with such fierce competition cannot he an effective influence. The question of numbers, proportion and percentage is of vital importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking—should he be so fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will expatiate succinctly on that point.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: As ever.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that amen from the Minister. I hope that we shall have a more formal amen later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in a more benevolent mood when he addresses the House. He became out of control when he left the subject of education. Last night he provoked hon. Members, with disastrous effects, on the subject of the Government's timetable. We all trust that the same will not occur this evening. It is a valediction, benediction and imprecation all at the same time.
      In New Clause 31(3) we suggest that
      "Parent governors or managers shall be elected annually."
      That is a matter of debate. Some people think that an election annually is too often and that the election should coincide with the appointment of the general governing body. Fortunately, those who give such advice have retired temporarily from the scene. We are not wedded to particular words. We put forward clauses to probe Government intentions and to stimulate Government action, if that is possible.
      We are perfectly happy to receive an assurance from the Minister on what the Government intend to do. We shall be happy to withdraw the clause and wait for something better. However, we require something fairly definite in the

      733
      way of a commitment from the Minister. If he has the power to give it, we shall gratefully accept it.
      New Clause 31(4) states that
      "Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers".
      It is difficult to be an effective manager or governor of a school. It is a function that cannot be carried out simply by the use of native shrewdness. There are problems that must be dealt with, and it would be useful to have brief courses to help and encourage people to take on this work. New Clause 31 is a constructive contribution to the educational argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) produced a Private Member's Bill to put into operation certain provisions of the Parents' Charter. Here we have another opportunity to do so. I hope that the Minister will take the clause seriously.
      7.15 p.m.
      New Clause 46 deals with the composition of governing bodies. That is governed by Section 17 of the Education Act 1944, which provides that not more than one-third of the managers or governors of a maintained school shall be appointed by the local education authority. That is an important change. It recognises the legitimate rôle of the local education authority, which should have one-third of the places. It says that other considerations are involved. Too often, although not by any means in all cases, appointment to a governorship is regarded as a reward for political services. It is the local government equivalent of an MBE. This is a waste and misuse of a potentially important position.
      We go on to suggest that in a county school two-thirds of the managers or governors should be appointed by approved local interests, in accordance with the rules of management in the case of primary schools and in accordance with the articles of government in relation to secondary schools.
      There is another entrenched one-third provision in the case of voluntary controlled schools. Besides the one-third of the governors or managers who are to be appointed by the local education auth-
      734
      ority, another one-third must be approved by local interests, as agreed.
      We then come to this most important provision for voluntary aided schools, where two-thirds of the governors or managers shall be appointed by the foundation. That is the position at present. We want to make it clear that although we want a revision of the proportions of governors under Section 17 of the 1944 Act, we do not wish to do anything to weaken the position of the voluntary aided school. That, alas, is being done in other parts of the Bill. Voluntary aided schools are being attacked as no other Government in our history have dared to attack them. They are taking away their rights over the organisation of their own schools. We want no part in that. We want to strengthen those schools. We fear that the attack on the organisation and powers of the voluntary aided schools will be followed by a further attack on their powers over the curriculum, which is a vital part of the independence of the schools. The safeguard lies in the two-thirds of the governors appointed by the foundation. We confirm that in the clause.
      New Clause 46(5) suggests that there should be among the governors appointed by local interests at least one parent-governor elected by the parents at the school, one teacher-governor elected from the teachers of the school, and the head teacher or a governor appointed by the head teacher. It is suggested that there should be other local representatives. It is important that there should be an election.
      I return to the question of parent governors. The advantage of having an election of parent governors by parents of other children of the school is that we involve those parents with the school and give them a focal point of interest. That is all to the good. It strengthens the school. We suggest that that election should be by secret postal ballot.
      I hope that we may make progress this evening. If the Minister of State is not provocative, we shall no doubt make better progress than we made last night. If he is in a good mood, if I have not put him in a bad mood by what I have said, we shall all be happy and shall all benefit. This is an extremely important clause. The fact that our remarks upon it may

      735
      be brief in no way detracts from the importance we attach to it.
      I have indicated to the Minister why we have tabled the clauses and I have spoken of the difficult issues involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a constructive reply and see what he can do to increase parental influence in the schools and so make them more effective in educating the children entrusted to them.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have no idea why the hon. Gentleman suggested that I was provocative or in a bad mood yesterday evening. It is true that on occasions I had to raise my voice slightly to make myself heard above the informed educational comments of his hon. Friends, but I thought that in general I was in one of my more cheery, benevolent moods.
      Why the hon. Gentleman should have suggested that this was the end of the infusion into our debates today of the ecumenical spirit is beyond my comprehension. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was well aware that he and I were the founders of the ecumenical movement in educational administration. That alliance was firmly cemented in Committee. It is true that on occasions we both had to look with disapprobation at some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends—I do not cast my glance in any particular direction—who made some extremely provocative remarks, but the hon. Gentleman and I always remained unified in our devotion to ecumenism in education. That ecumenical spirit continues.
      If I may strike a personal note rather than a ministerial note, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was excessively moderate in what he said today. I say that with great care, because, knowing his dedication to research, I have no doubt that he has read my speech to the annual conference of the National Association of Parent-Teacher Associations in 1972 or 1973. He will find that what I said then went rather further than what he said today. Indeed, I do not know why he should suggest in subsection (5) of New Clause 46 that only one parent governor should be elected
      "by and from the parents of the school".
      That seems to me—again I speak in a purely personal capacity—to be excessively modest.
      736
      The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that my ecumenism does not extend to legislation at present. Here I think I can speak for my right hon. Friend. We hold firmly to the principle that we must extend the rights of parents and teachers in the government and management of schools, but that it would be unwise to pass legislation while the Taylor Committee, which we appointed to investigate exactly that problem, is still deliberating on what may prove to be one of the most important reforms in the administration of education for a very long time.
      I do not want to dwell on the words of the new clauses or on some of their drafting defects, because I readily concede that the hon. Gentleman had acute difficulty, when he had to draft 95 new clauses overnight, in getting the detail of every one of them precisely right. The whole House will have sympathised with him in his task. We all imagine him sitting in his bath set into the floor, with a wet towel round his head as he scribbled new clauses madly throughout the night.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has left out the harp.
      Mr. Fowler: Then we imagine the hon. Gentleman scribbling new clauses with one hand while playing his harp with the other.
      It is not apparent exactly how the clauses are to be reconciled. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will again say that the Government have a choice, but it is not apparent, on looking at them, that there is intended to be a choice. The first subsection suggests that
      "At least one-quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school."
      The second discusses the mode of appointment of managers and governors and moves into the language of "thirds". I do not wish, by accepting such clauses, to cause grave mathematical problems for local education authorities. Therefore, whilst I think that the hon. Gentleman's intention is admirable, it seems to me that the clauses would not be suitable for passage into law.
      When we have the report of the Taylor Committee we might want also to question the proposition that governors or

      737
      managers should cease to be governors or managers when they cease to be parents of pupils at the school. I raise here an old familiar problem about parental governors or managers, namely, that by the time they have become known to the generality of the body of parents, and have become elected to be governors or managers, not much of their own child's period at the school may be left. There is a positive weakness here in that one gives an advantage to those with large families so spaced that they regularly have a child at the same school and may, therefore, remain governors or managers for a long period. It is open to question whether one should want to provide that when the child leaves school any parent governor or manager should automatically cease to be a governor or manager of that school.
      There is a problem that we discussed at some length in Committee, that of election by postal ballot of the body of parents. It was never clear in Committee who would keep the electoral roll and how the ballot papers would be distributed. I think that one hon. Member suggested that it would be done by giving the papers to the children, but I suspect that other Conservative Members did not much like that proposition. It was not clear how a postal ballot would be conducted. There are details that need much more examination than we can give them today.
      The same goes for the proposition that
      "Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers."
      That may well be right, and I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. There would be some public expenditure implications. I draw attention to them in an almost ritual fashion, but it is important that we all recognise that there are those implications, and that we cannot ignore them.
      Again, while they may be desirable, we shall want to see the recommendations of the Taylor Committee, first as to whether it is necessary or desirable and, secondly, if it is necessary or desirable, how it is to be accomplished. That is not spelt out by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman does not say whether the LEA would lay on special instruc-
      738
      tion at the school, whether the further education colleges would provide such courses, or whether he would lay them on in Smith Square.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: What part of Smith Square?
      Mr. Fowler: Perhaps I should be laying them on in Smith Square. I leave that matter open.
      7.30 p.m.
      Strong views are held about this subject. The hon. Member for Chelmsford holds strong views and he knows that I also hold strong views, but we both know that although we are full of ecumenical spirit, there are zealous heretics in the opposite camp and there may be zealous heretics in the local authority camp. Clearly, it is better to await the report of the Taylor Committee, to go as swiftly as possible through consultation with the interests affected—the local education authorities, teacher organisations and others—and then come to a conclusion. That would be the appropriate time for legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am not being unsympathetic, but I must ask the House to reject the new clause as anticipatory to Taylor.
      Mr. Freud: I totally agree with the Minister that while the Taylor Committee is sitting it is extravagant to come forward with proposals conceived in a short time with insufficient thought. Although I may be too late to express this view, I should like the Taylor Committee to look at several matters of deep concern to many people.
      The Taylor Committee should examine the failure of governors and school managers. I am not talking about political influence, because it is right for local authorities to appoint politicians to sit on the boards of management and to serve as school governors. But often such appointments are made as a reward for years of incompetent local service. An appointment to a board of management should never be a reward for anything but should be given to people who are passionately interested in something.
      There should be more representation of parents and teachers and local citizens such as shopkeepers who live nearby, householders who might have their windows broken by passing children, and

      739
      people who are interested in education. Perhaps we should eliminate from boards of management anyone who has been or has toyed with becoming an educational psychiatrist.
      The Taylor Committee might also consider that "lollipop" ladies or gentlemen and school meals organisers should have a say in the management of a school. They should be people to whom parents can go in an official rather than an unofficial capacity. Youth club leaders, almost of their own right, and churchmen, where they exist and have relevance, should also serve on boards of management.
      I disagree with New Clause 31 which says that parent governors should be elected annually. When a parent becomes a governor of a school, that is often the first time that he has had any experience of sitting on a committee. It takes nearly a year to master the art of tabling amendments and moving a motion. The average school does not have many meetings of school governors and a parent who sensibly decides to spend his first two or three meetings learning the procedure and the next few meetings feeling his feet, will find that the year is over before he has made a real contribution.
      It is wrong to disqualify a parent governor merely because his child has left the school. By all means if the child left a long time ago, have a provision granting a year's grace on either side. It is important to remember that the job of governor depends on his having learned something of the procedure.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) concede that the most valuable work done by governors or managers is not necessarily that which they do at formal meetings, but the interest that they take in the running of the school between meetings? While I sympathise with him when he says that parents should not necessarily have to stand for election each year, most of the good work that they do is that of taking an active interest in the school—in the teaching, sport and social activities between meetings.
      Mr. Freud: I agree. If the intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has helped to stop
      740
      him from rising to his feet, we shall be the richer. The hon. Gentleman is right, but if it had not been for his intervention, I might now be seated.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: Basically the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is against governors being elected annually, but surely he is in favour of elections.
      Mr. Freud: I am totally in favour of elections. I was saying that parent governors should have more than one year to prove themselves. I should be happier if they could have an initial period of two years, although perhaps there should be a right to disqualify after a year. If someone has attended a course or read books about being a governor, one year is a short time for him to put that knowledge into practice.
      Sir G. Sinclair: I am grateful for the kind words that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) said about my campaign to bring into use, for the benefit of schools, one of the additional resources in education which is grossly under-used today. I refer to the continuing responsibility by parents for the future of their children during schooldays, the amount of work that they are prepared to do and the ideas that they are prepared to bring forward to improve their children's schools. We are proposing in New Clause 31 to bring the strength of parents into a more valuable association with the schools.
      We hoped earlier in the debate by a new clause, to ensure that parents had a greater freedom of effective choice of schools for their children. We hoped that if their preferences were unduly thwarted there would through other new clauses be an independent appeal board. By this new clause we are hoping to bring the parents into a natural alliance with the school, and I think that the Minister sees the force of our case.
      Children are at home for far longer than they are at school, and the overriding responsibility for bringing up children must remain, where it has always been, with the parents. They cannot rightly delegate that responsibility unless they have great confidence in the school. When society is changing so rapidly and parents are worried about the problems which their children face, it is right that parents should make their influence more

      741
      widely felt in the schools in which their children are spending so much of their formative years.
      We put forward this proposal in a constructive way. It is not right that parents should continue to be so isolated from what goes on in the school. Some headmasters, management committees and governing bodies welcome the closer association of parents with the school. There are also headmasters who resent attempts by parents to become more closely involved in the school, and there are management committees which take the same view. That is wrong and unhealthy.
      In some parts of the country, by tradition parents have been very close to the individual members of the staff and to the head. Once again I refer to the pre-eminence of the Welsh experience. Such arrangements can give satisfaction to the parents and can help the school, and great benefits can result from parents, teachers and young all being associated together, not pulling against each other but working in the same direction.
      Greater parental representation on boards of governors will carry this association a step further both symbolically and in the working activities of management committees and governing bodies. Local authorities and headmasters who run good schools will welcome this reinforcement, which can carry the influence of the home into the school and the influence of the school into the home, so that the child does not feel that there is conflict between the two.
      There are other schools where, unfortunately, the standards of learning and conduct are failing the young. If parents served on the management committees or boards of governors of those schools, they would at least have the right, on behalf of other parents, to bring these failing into the open They would be able to get parents to bring pressure on local authorities through the elected members and through direct representations, and to make a fuss if they thought that the school was going to the bad. This activity will encourage the local authorities to seek remedies where they are needed.
      742
      7.45 p.m.
      We often hear of local authorities which are unwilling to cope with difficulties in schools which may continue for years and prejudice the whole outlook and future of the children who attend schools in that area. We want the parents there to fight for the best education they can get for their children by bringing their ideas before the headmaster and the local authority. Representatives of the local authority will be sitting beside them on the management committee and governing boards. This dialogue should give a new edge to the discussions. Parents have a live interest on behalf of their children and can provide the momentum for bringing about remedial measures if they are necessary. I hope that such appointments will be helpful to good headmasters and local authorities and will prove to be a tonic where a headmaster or local authority has been less than adequate in maintaining good standards of learning and conduct in the school.
      I have heard various remarks about the representation of the local authorities on management committees and boards of governors. Some members are appointed because they have a real interest in education. Others are appointed because they have not been appointed to one of the more influential committees of the local authority and are being fobbed off with an empty facade job as governor of a school. Parent governors, who have a sharp interest in the success of the school, will tone up and make more enthusiastic those members who, after all, have some qualities which enable them to be elected to the local authority.
      Doubts have been expressed about the method of election of parent governors. We prefer the most open possible form of election, but the ballot itself must be secret, and I personally prefer a postal ballot.
      The length of service of such governors is arguable. A parent whose child leaves school would not necessarily be disqualified; he could be appointed a governor in one of the other categories. But it is important to ensure that parent governors are not the parents of children who have left school. They must have children at the school and be able to talk to other parents with children at that

      743
      school. That is what matters. That is what gives them the driving force and the sharp interest to press for improvements.
      When the Secretary of State examines the possibilities, having accepted the principle that there is a valuable and under-used resource that could be brought to help in upgrading the schools, I am sure that we shall overcome the purely administrative difficulties of how the vote should be conducted and how long people should stay, keeping to the principle that at least a third of the governors should be parents of children at the school at that time. As I have said, that gives them the interest and the right to speak on behalf of other parents who have children at the school.
      That should be the driving force, and the strength for good, of governors appointed in this way. I believe they will be able to bring the worries of parents in a proper, disciplined way to the decision-making body of the school, and serve as a good and open form of communication among the parents, the local authority and the headmaster. I believe that that is healthy and good, and I hope that the Government will accept it as a principle.
      Mr. Christopher Price: It is pleasant to be released after 12 months of them from one's Trappist vows as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Education and Science and to be able to say something about the Bill—for the first time. I cannot remember how many Committee sittings I sat through, mute but attentive, listening to the balderdash and nonsense poured out from the Opposition Benches. It is a relief and a pleasant change for me to be able to say something at this stage. Having served a year as a PPS, I think it only sensible and right to hand over to someone younger. It is also pleasant to be able to rebut some of the hypocrisy and cant about parents which poured out from the Opposition Benches in Committee.
      Historically, the Conservative Party has done nothing, in the local education authorities it has controlled, to promote the advent of parents to governing bodies. The first local education authority which arranged for the appointment of parents to its governing bodies under a
      744
      general local-authority-wide scheme was the county borough of Sheffield in 1968. I was the deputy-chairman of the education committee for some years, from which I take some pride. At the time the scheme was considered an amazing innovation. It astonished most other local education authorities in the country. It was not a Conservative local education authority. It was Labour controlled.
      Sir G. Sinclair rose—
      Mr. Price: May I make my speech in my own way?
      Sir G. Sinclair rose—
      Mr. Price: No. I want to make my speech in my own way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I shall give way in a moment.
      Sir G. Sinclair: I was going to say something very helpful.
      Mr. Price: I am sure.
      It was a Labour local education authority, urged on by the first nationwide parent organisation—namely, the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education. That organisation always had as one of its first tenets the appointment of parents to governing bodies.
      The second local education authority in Britain to appoint parents to its governing bodies generally was not a Conservative local education authority but the Inner London Education Authority. Parents were appointed immediately following the three years of Conservative control. Then the Inner London Education Authority was decked out with such luminaries as Mr. Christopher Chataway and others who talked a great deal about these matters but historically, when in power, did nothing about them.
      I agree that on local government reorganisation quite a few Conservative counties brought in parental representation.
      Mr. Tony Durant: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when the ILEA introduced parent representation? I am interested in the year.
      Mr. Price: I am not able to put an exact year before the House, but it was about 1970. It was the year following

      745
      Labour's regaining of the ILEA, which, I think, was 1970 or 1971. That is when the ILEA started its scheme.
      There is a great deal of cant and hypocrisy involved in proposals of this sort that stem from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members do not understand, and seem incapable of understanding, that the move to bring parents on to governing bodies, which started with Labour Sheffield, followed by Labour London, followed by a number of other authorities of all political persuasions, came about because schools became comprehensive.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nonsense.
      Mr. Price: When there were grammar schools taking pupils from an enormously wide catchment area—in Sheffied it was a city-wide catchment area—no schemes were ever put forward, to my knowledge, to have elected parent representatives. Perhaps I shall be given some examples, but I know of no local authority authorised scheme for elected parent representatives for grammar schools. If there are any, I shall be pleased to hear about them.
      When local education authorities went comprehensive, those which took their jobs seriously had to think about the purpose of the schools within the communities they were to serve. When schools go comprehensive, for the first time they serve, hopefully, a clearly defined community. In Sheffield and London, and I am sure in many other local education areas, only because the schools were comprehensive did it become the natural thing for members of the community, especially parents, to join in the work of the schools by being on governing bodies. Had it not been for the move towards comprehensive education the position now would probably be as it was in the 1940s and 1950s, when, as far as I know, elected parent representation on governing bodies did not exist. I am sure that there are only isolated examples of elected parent representatives on the governing bodies of county schools; if so, I shall be pleased to hear of them. However, I have never heard of an example in the past.
      When we set up the Sheffield scheme I think that the authority wrote to every local education authority in Britain ask-
      746
      ing for its experience, as it was building up a scheme from scratch. There did not seem to be any experience in any other local education authority.
      8.0 p.m.
      It is absurd for the Opposition to try to pretend that there is some division, either in the House or in the country, about whether it is a good thing for parents to serve on governing bodies.
      There are many governing bodies, and some of them resolutely keep the parents away. This applies particularly to voluntary schools, and certainly to those in London. Although all the county schools have parents serving on governing bodies because the local education authorities have the power to say that they shall be on them, very few voluntary schools have parents serving on their governing bodies because the local education authority has no standing to insist that that happens.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although parents are not directly elected to governing bodies and to voluntary aided and similar schools, often parents serve on governing bodies because they are elected through old girls' and old boys' associations.
      Mr. Price: I readily agree that from time immemorial a very wide number of both voluntary and county schools have had representatives from old boys', old girls' or old pupils' associations, but that is not what we are talking about here. What the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a body such as a parent-teacher association. One is sometimes represented on those bodies by good parents, but at other times I am not so sure that that is the case.
      If parents are to serve on governing bodies, I believe that the only proper way in which to achieve that situation is for them to be elected, by some method or other, out of the whole body of parents. It is interesting that Conservative Members put forward a suggestion for postal ballots when at the same time they appear to want to keep down further expenditure.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How are parents at a meeting to be held, say, once a year likely to be able to make up their minds which parents are able to represent their interests? The parent-teacher associations frequently have social

      747
      functions and meet one another to discuss the problems of their schools. Is that not a better forum for the election of parents to school government bodies?
      Mr. Price: The short answer is "No". I agree that, as the system works at present in London, it is not wholly satisfactory. The election of parents normally takes place every three years when the governors are reconstituted. Therefore, a body of parents elected on those lines may have a slightly better idea of what is taking place. When parents meet to elect parental representatives in genuine community comprehensive schools, that is not the first time that they have seen one another because they all come from the same community and know one another through many other activities in the community. Difficulty arises in selective schools which cover a wide catchment area, especially a county area, where parents may well not meet one another on other occasions.
      The Inner London Education Authority adopted a courageous attitude, because obviously it was not easy to get the parent governor idea through the powerful Inner London Teachers Association, because that body was not very keen on parents serving on such bodies. Therefore, that courageous action has already borne fruit.
      There are many other places in which these things have come about—for example, at the William Tyndale School. Some people will say that one side or the other is right in that affair, but what is certain is that the fact that there were parent representatives on the managers of the William Tyndale School brought the issue out into the open. Therefore, the inquiry took place very much more quickly than would have been the case if those representatives had not existed.
      I believe that it would be absurd to pass these new clauses as they stand. However, it is important that we should air these matters in the House and, therefore, this occasion has not been in vain.
      Taken at face value, this is another example from the Conservative Party by which it seeks a hundred and one ways of wanting to go clean against all the devolved traditions of English education which lay down exactly how the local education authorities should work. My
      748
      view is that it is far better on issues such as this to let local education authorities, along with their teachers and parent organisations, work out schemes and systems of their own.
      We must all remember that the report of the Taylor Committee is almost complete. We must also remember that the Conservative Party, which has been so eloquent on these topics today, made no attempt to set up a committee to investigate the government and management of schools. That was left to a Labour Government. The Conservative Government over a period of four years had in office an eminent Secretary of State for Education and Science, but during that period she did nothing about bringing about parental representation on managing and governing bodies. The report of the Taylor Committee, and what flows from it in legislative form, may do more to change the face of English education than almost anything that has happened since the passing of the Education Act 1944.
      The Labour Party has sent in a published memorandum of evidence to the Taylor Committee—which, strangely enough, is somewhat on the lines of the proposals in these two Conservative clauses. But one cannot complete the membership of governing bodies merely by taking on parents. There are other elements to be considered, such as the teachers and the pupils, who need to be represented.
      I do not know whether the Conservative Party has put in any evidence to the Taylor Committee. If so, I should be interested to read it to see whether Conservatives have bothered to work out what they think. I want to know whether they have put their considered opinion where their parliamentary mouth is. We can then see whether it is a lot of hot air or whether it has any real substance. I hope that we shall discover whether Conservatives have a genuine commitment to the idea of parent governors. I believe that there is a broad feeling on these lines among many Conservatives. I know that there are no statistics in the local education authorities on this subject and, therefore, we cannot know the exact position, but I am confident that if we could obtain such statistics it would be found that it is the Conservative, and particularly the "independent", controlled local education authorities which are the backsliders

      749
      in the provision of schemes for parent-governors of county schools. In fact, many voluntary schools have not got around to this idea. It is difficult for them because it could upset their delicate built-in majority under the 1944 Act.
      In conclusion, I cannot believe that the Conservatives really intend to vote on this matter, even though it was right that it should have been aired in a debate, but just to deflate them a little, we on this side of the House have far more to be proud of than they have in bringing elected parent governors on to the boards of governors of schools.
      Mr. Roger Sims: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), not least to the point he made about the desirability of the Minister not telling local authorities how to organise local education, that he should leave them to get on with it. Those sentiments will be read with interest by a lot of local authorities, particularly Tameside.
      Whatever the outcome of this clause, this has been a useful debate in that it has given hon. Members on all sides an opportunity of ventilating the matter. I endorse the case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). One of the great faults of the present system is that many of the appointments to governing bodies are almost entirely party political appointments. All political parties are involved in this.
      I was, in fact, one such appointment to the governing body of a school. It was neither a reward nor an attempt to fob off trouble elsewhere. I hope that I was appointed because it was thought that I could give some assistance to that body. In my case I had a particular advantage because at the time one of my children was a pupil at the school in question. The fact that I had this connection with the school made me a more useful member of the board than I should have been otherwise. It gave me quite an insight into what was going on.
      When one's own children attend a particular school, one hears all sorts of things that one would not hear as an ordinary governor. At the time I was the only governor who was a parent, and that situation continued for some time. Later
      750
      I was joined by another who was also a parent, but he was also a political appointment. Nevertheless, the value of having two of us with this close connection with the school was very obvious to me.
      From time to time I found that I was approached by the parents of pupils anxious about the way in which the school was being run. They put to me their points of view about certain changes they thought should be implemented, and it was up to me to listen to the voices and act upon them. The extent to which parents' voices are heard by the governing body depends to a large extent on the willingness of individual governors to pass on information.
      8.15 p.m.
      It would be much better if parents themselves elected their own representatives to the governing body to voice their views. The other advantage of the proposals we are discussing tonight is that parents themselves could get a much better understanding of the way in which the school is run, the powers of the governors—which are somewhat limited —and the constraints within which the school is operating.
      Quite recently in my constituency there was a case when parents asked for a meeting with the governors of a school and the point which emerged from that rather noisy meeting was the parents' ignorance. I use that word in the kindest way. They did not know, or realise, the powers of the governors and what they could do or could not do. The parents spent a lot of time criticising that board of management for decisions which were quite outside the managers' responsibility. This is a concrete example of the sort of case put forward by my hon. Friends, and I hope that the House will support the clause.
      Mr. Durant: I intervene in this debate because I was chairman of an excepted district in a local education authority and played some part in changing the whole philosophy on management and governors in schools in my area.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) took a harsh political line, because he is well-known for his expertise in these matters.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: He is also known for his harsh political lines.
      Mr. Durant: As I said, he is well known for his knowledge of this subject, which I respect, and I am sorry that he took a political line early in his speech.
      However, he said that he would prefer local education authorities to decide their own formulae. I strongly believe in this, and that is why I am against this Bill in principle. The hon. Member said that the Labour Party had had great success in promoting the idea of parent participation in managing bodies. He mentioned Sheffield and ILEA in particular, but many of us were beginning to do battle on this matter at that period as well. Sheffield and ILEA may have been first, but that does not mean that others were not discussing the matter in their local education authorities.
      What the hon. Member did not mention was that many teachers were far more resistant to the idea than parents. It was the teachers who felt that this was an incursion into the management of their schools.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I did mention that. I said that ILEA had difficulty in persuading the Inner London Teachers' Association to support the scheme, but eventually patience and consultation were rewarded.
      Mr. Durant: I accept that. This was a difficulty which I encountered.
      Mr. Flannery: I am a Member for Sheffield, and I assure the hon. Member as an executive member of the National Union of Teachers representing Sheffield that there was not the slightest difficulty from Sheffield teachers. They were more than willing to join in and all our governing and managing bodies now have two elected teachers.
      Mr. Freud: Well done!
      Mr. Durant: As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), "Well done". I said that in some parts of the country there was some resistance on the part of teachers. I am not saying that Sheffield was good, bad, or indifferent. I am talking about the general problem of persuading teachers to take this matter seriously and to involve more parents in participation. One of our aims in these clauses is to increase the percentage of parent participation.
      752
      I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that the present system of having one parent appointed by some special sanctimonious agreement gives rise to the parental fanatic who turns up with tremendous pressure and bias, and with his own axe to grind. The idea of having a percentage is a better approach which will overcome that difficulty, and I welcome that element of the proposals because some of the parents who wish to participate are not always the most suitable.
      I do not mean that in an unkind way. It is a natural tendency to have a fanatic on the board, but that is not good for the school. The governing bodies need someone who can contribute, not someone who is joining, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) said, because a secondary school means an OBE or a primary school means an MBE. The governing body needs someone who will participate in the school, contribute to it and enter into its activities.
      I welcome the proposal on training. The local education authority of which I was chairman before I became a Member of Parliament carries out such training. Recently it operated a postal ballot for governorships in the way that has been suggested. That is not as expensive as has been suggested. It does not cost an enormous amount of money, and it is a step worth considering.
      I should like the governors to have more power. We are told that the Taylor Committee is considering this point. I should like governors to be as they were under the old LCC when they had financial powers of their own, provided from central funds, with which they could express their own view on how to help the school. Unfortunately, most governors have no monetary power, and that is a pity because often they know better than others the priorities of the school. They would not need to have large sums at their disposal, but there are schemes with which they would like to assist.
      The Minister says that we should await the Taylor Committee report and then act upon it. Since I came to the House I have become a little jaundiced about such Committees. We all waited for the Layfield Committee and I am not sure that that has not been a damp squib. I

      753
      am a little worried that the Taylor Committee may go the same way. I am therefore not entirely convinced that there is a valid argument for doing nothing. I believe that we should press on rather than wait for the Committee. We can always evaluate the Committee against what is now proposed, but it would be wrong to sit and do nothing.
      My criticism of our proposals centres on the question of annual elections. I have a reservation here. Most school governors have one meeting per term, and if they are annually elected, it will take them a couple of terms to get to know what the job is all about.
      I spent a considerable amount of my time trying to secure fewer councillors sitting on local governing bodies. Often the school mistrusts them, and it is said that often they only arrive at the prize-giving because it could mean a few extra votes at the next election. Of course I do not suggest that the councillor who takes a genuine and long-standing interest in a particular school should be excluded. But if a councillor is put on to a governing body because it is one member short, that is the wrong approach. Head teachers mistrust such appointments. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely spoke about local shopkeepers and other local people joining such bodies, and that is an excellent avenue to explore in the search for people who will back a school. My proviso concerns the annual election, but I believe the principle is right.
      Mr. John Cope: I was not a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and I have not habitually spoken in education debates. I was lightly educated at a direct grant grammar school. I hold certain views on this question, although I express them with the diffidence of one who has nothing like the experience in this matter of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) or others. I go along with the principle of New Clause 31 but I do not like the suggestion in New Clause 46 that there should be only one parent governor. It is important that there should be several.
      Sir G. Sinclair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that the Minister is absent from the debate. It would be a great help—I am glad to see that he has now returned.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: When I discuss matters within the Chamber with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) should not suggest that I have left.
      Mr. Cope: We were not suggesting that the Minister was either Left or Right.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my hon. Friend perhaps take on board that the Minister is doing much better here than in Committee? This time he is disappearing behind the Speaker's Chair, but in Committee he used to disappear behind Hadrian's Wall.
      Mr. Flannery: What does that mean?
      Mr. Cope: The hon. Member may well ask. I have not the faintest idea.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: The explanation of that remark is that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is so confused in his geography that he believes that Lancashire is beyond Hadrian's Wall.
      Mr. Cope: Geography was included in my curriculum and I know where Hadrian's Wall is, even if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) does not.
      I was saying that it is not sufficient to have one parent governor elected. What happens when the pupil whose parent is on the board leaves school? It is important to have continuity in these posts. If there is only one parent governor, the newcomer will be unfamiliar with the procedure. It is therefore important that there should be overlapping periods of service of parent governors. The different parent governors will have different contributions to make.
      The value of governing bodies is that they bring together a variety of interests which can be contributed to the life of the school. There are many schools, including those in Gloucestershire, which have parents on the governing bodies. These parents are not elected and that is an important consideration.
      Some parents might get on to a governing body whether there was a system of election or appointment. If there are elections, that draws into the governing of the school those who vote as well as the individuals who are elected to the

      755
      managing body. This is a key point in the new clause. It is intended to give a role not only to the parents who get on to the governing body, but to those who take part in the elections.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Flannery: Would the hon. Member agree that many parents could do a good job on governing bodies but might not be capable of reporting back? If an elected representative of the parents could report back to them, would that not bring even more democracy into the system?
      Mr. Cope: The hon. Member is right. It would be difficult to lay down the methods of doing this either centrally in an education authority or throughout the country. This is one of the purposes of, for example, parent-teacher associations. Parent governors should play a big part in the associations and elected representatives would be answerable to PTA members.
      The Minister referred to the problems which parents might have in getting known to other parents while they had children at school. Parents with only one child would have a relatively short time in which to get known. It was suggested that parent governors should be allowed to continue after their children had left school. I agree that governors should be allowed a decent interval in office after their children have left the school, but it would defeat the whole principle and make a nonsense of the system if they were allowed to stay on indefinitely.
      Parents might decide not to elect one of themselves as a governor. They might think that, for example, a local priest or minister might be a good person to help in the running of the school even though he had no children at the school and maybe never would have. It is the election with which we are particularly concerned in this clause rather than having parents on the governing body.
      The Minister suggested that difficulties might arise over who should keep the electoral roll, but that sounded like no more than a quibble over the details of the new clause. I do not think that any problems arise in those authorities where parents are currently elected to man aging bodies.
      756
      The Minister also seemed to suggest that schools might not know the addresses of their pupils. That is so absurd that I cannot really believe the Minister meant to say it. It is a bogus argument on which we need to waste no time.
      In a typical aside, the hon. Member fo the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) suggested that parents should be able to go officially to the "lollipop" lady or gentleman about the running of the school. It is sometimes difficult to tell whether the hon. Member is being serious. These ladies and gentlemen often have something to contribute which can be useful in the running of the school.
      I attended a meeting a few weeks ago between the governing bodies of a primary school in my constituency and the two local parish councils. It was called to discuss with representatives of the county council the problem of the safety of the schoolchildren coming out of the school, which is on a very busy and dangerous road. The principal witness who took the major part in the discussion, was, indeed, the "lollipop" lady. She was in the best position to say what would contribute to the safety of the schoolchildren, because she stood in the road twice a day to watch them across the street.
      I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has now joined us. When he was Minister of Transport we tried to persuade him to improve the road—unfortunately, without success. We are still working on that.
      I was rather shocked by the suggestion from the Minister of State that the courses which, it was said, should be provided by the local education authorities for governors and managers might be provided on either side of Smith Square. It seems to me that a very important element in both these new clauses relates to the attempt to reduce rather than increase the political element in the bodies of school managers and governors. The idea that, parent governors having been elected, they should attend courses run by political parties seems to run totally counter to the suggestions being made in these two new clauses.
      The important element in these new clauses is the attempt to get away from the appointment of most or all of the school governors by the local education

      757
      authority. This brings us back to considering having governors or managers at all in a school.
      The point is not to have a subcommittee of the local education authority which happens to be involved with certain aspects of running the school, appointed by the authority and just there for the purpose of carrying out the LEA's wishes. The point is to have a separate body that will take a different view and help to build up the institution of the school and to give the school a flavour of its own, apart from the rules and the controls which come from the LEA.
      Of course, the LEA will still have the strongest hand in the running of the school. That is inevitable. It directly pays for it and has the greatest control. But the point of having governors and managers is to have a separate body with different ideas which will also help to form the institution which is the school. That is the idea of it, and that is the point of these new clauses.
      I support very strongly the last sentence of the last subsection of New Clause 46, which suggests that certain other bodies also—it is only a permissive phrase, not a binding one—might be permitted to appoint governors to schools. That is a very sensible arrangement, and one which would help to build up the separateness of the governors or managers of the school, which is what I should like to see.
      Mr. Arnold Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has been talking a lot about the governors being, as it were, an entity that more or less reflects the local authority as it now is. I have been a member of a board of management and of governors in the capacity of a representative of a local authority, and at no time did I ever find the board to be a part of the establishment. Each board looked after its school.
      However, one thing that struck me all the time was the lack of power that these boards of governors and managers had. I have been listening for some time to various Opposition Members talking very loosely. If even 25 per cent. of the managers of governors were parents, how would that affect the working of the managers or governors and their effectiveness?
      Mr. Cope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way. He makes an important point. The only way in which these two new clauses would affect the powers would be by making the bodies themselves more powerful—that is the hope, at any rate—and more separate from the LEA and more able to stand up to it.
      Neither of these new clauses affects the actual powers or duties of these governing bodies. My hon. Friends have said that they think the powers ought to be increased, but that is not what the debate is about. Any remarks of that kind were made, as it were, only in the margins of this debate. However, I hope, that it is something on which the Taylor Committee will be able to guide us a little.
      I was concluding my remarks by emphasising the importance of having bodies of governors and managers whch are as far as possible separate from the LEA. Otherwise, how can they carry out any separate rôle that may be assigned to them?
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is no longer in the Chamber. He made a valuable contribution to the debate, but he spoilt it by bringing into it a totally party view by endeavouring to persuade the House that it was only Socialist education authorities that were keen to bring parents on to governing and managing bodies. That is very far from the truth. Many education authorities under Conservative control have for years practised one system or another of parents being members of such bodies.
      Perhaps I may briefly establish my own credentials in this matter. I was elected to a county council. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson), who sat on that county council with me, is present in the Chamber to listen to some of the remarks I intend to make. To make a party point perhaps, I was elected in an area which hitherto had been represented by Socialists for many years.
      I was the first Tory to be elected there. [Interruption.] If Labour Members want some statistics, I shall give them. When

      759
      the swing was going against the Conservative Party at the next round of local government elections, I increased my majority by six times. I say that really for the benefit of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).
      Having been elected for a division of the Warwickshire County Council, one had the opportunity, through the various county education committees, of recommending people as governors and managers. I made it my job to sit on every board of managers and governors in the area that I served. At the same time, I had people appointed. My nominations were always accepted by the committee —and this practice was carried on by members of the Labour Party representing their wards.
      Mr. William Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House that he was a member of a political party that controlled the county council. My experience with my nominations was certainly not the same as his.
      Mr. Winterton: It was so in my area of North Warwickshire, in which many members of the Labour Party served as county councillors. Their nominations to boards of managers and governors were generally accepted. We endeavoured to find the very best people to serve on these boards. In many cases, without having it as part of any set plan in the county, we had parents brought on to the governing bodies among the nominations of the county councillor representing the area.
      8.45 p.m.
      I made a great effort to ensure that those people, male and female, took an active part in the life of the school. I made the point, when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), that we want people who are interested in education to serve on the governing and managing bodies of schools. That is why these new clauses are of the utmost importance.
      The Secretary of State and the Minister of State can no doubt fault the wording of the new clauses but it is the principle that is important. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member
      760
      for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). Why should we wait for the Taylor Committee? In the end it might come forward with proposals that are totally unacceptable.
      It would seem from the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that he supports the need for more parents to come on to the governing bodies. The Government have often said that there is no time like the present to get things done. Here we are giving them the opportunity to ensure that more parents may serve on these important bodies.
      Yesterday the Government were not terribly keen to provide parents with statistics about examination results and the performance of a school. Today we are asking them to accept these new clauses because that will mean that more parents will be on the governing and managing bodies and they will themselves be able to find out, as part of the governing body of that school, what the examination record is. They can then pass this information back to other parents or parents likely to have children going to that school.
      Mr. Lawrence: They can put it in a prospectus.
      Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend says that they can put it in a prospectus. But with parents coming on to these bodies in greater numbers perhaps, irrespective of what the local education authority may say, although they no doubt will submit it to the education authority, they will get their governing body to issue a prospectus so that people are genuinely in the picture about the type of school, its teachers, its successes, its statistics and its record.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, who was obviously in support of the principle behind these new clauses, will reconsider his view. Rather than criticise the detail, I hope he will support the principle. I hope that he will come into the Lobby with us, because it is an important matter.
      Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I rise to support my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), on this new clause. It is not just a probing new clause but is a statement of intent in respect of the Opposition's views.

      761
      If the Government will not accept the new clause as it stands, we should like to think that something like it would be put into the Bill so that thet least co-operative authority would then do at least as well as the average authority, or even the best, does now.
      I think there is a movement away from political governors. We suggest in the new clause that the proportion of political governors should be no more than one third. In the other new clause—this was a point clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—we suggest that a minimum of 25 per cent. of the governors should come from the parents.
      At one time, two-thirds of governors came from the majority party and a third from the minority. After each election there was a turn around. That was the arrangement until 1972 in ILEA. The balance was changed that year, unfortunately, and the majority party took four-fifths of the seats on governing bodies, which is not proportional to the voting. With this big turn around, political governors almost had to ask where their schools were. When action was taken in Marylebone, a map had to be issued so that the new Labour governors could find their way to the school concerned.
      This is not true of only one party. One political governor, not a Labour governor, attended only governors' meetings and was never involved in the running of the school. There is no point in governors just attending meetings and not getting to know the staff and children and the aims of a school.
      Elected councillors can be a link between the governing body and the authority. We have a debate ahead of us on the educational voucher which could change the financing of schools, but so long as local authorities control the purse strings, it is helpful if members of the county authority are on the governing bodies. I was fortunate in Highbury Grove to have Dame Evelyn Dennington, Chairman of the GLC, as one of my governors. She was a better link than my telephone to County Hall.
      What I have said is true so long as not more than a third of the governors
      762
      are councillors. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who was himself a governor, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) have all said that it is important to get governors involved in a school.
      Many people look upon governorships rather like MBEs and BEMs, as a reward at the end of a political career. There is even a political pecking order. I have known governors to object to being put on the governing body of school X rather than school Y because more political power was to be derived from school Y where sitting on the platform was useful whatever the colour of the hat that person wore.
      Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it was not unknown for a shift in the political balance of the education authority to mean that someone with excellent qualifications as a governor had to make way for someone whose qualifications were far less discernible?
      Dr. Boyson: That is perfectly true.
      I hope that something will come out of the Taylor Committee. If the new clause is accepted, we might not have to wait for its report. It may have to move faster.
      Every governor should spend at least one full day a term inside his school. He should not confine himself to open days and prize days when he can be on public view. On that day, he should go around and talk to the children and the staff and see the lessons, without the head being present. At 4 o'clock, he should discuss with the head and his staff what he has seen.
      I always tried to get governors of my school—and I failed only once—to agree to come for at least a minimum of one day a term and spend the whole day there, from 8.30 or 9 a.m. until about 6 p.m. when the activities declined. This should be more a requirement of governors, far more than going on a course, because some people are professional course-goers. Governors should actually come to a school and see how it works.
      Parent governors are important. If parents have selected a school and a child knows that its parents want it

      763
      to go to that school and if the parents are involved in the running of the school, that school will be better than others where there is not this degree of involvement by parent governors. Many parent governors, whether of boys' or girls' schools, had children within a school and many council political nominees with children chose to serve as governors of their schools.
      In my headship in Lancashire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) two of my chairman governors in succession were old boys of the school, with their own children in the school, and we can do no better than that. They had been at the school, had liked it and had sent their children back to it.
      At Highbury Grove we had one parent governor, another co-opted parent governor, three governors with children at the school and one other whose children had been at the school. There were seven out of 16 involved in that way, which was of great help in running the school.
      Mr. Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman disqualify as governors those with children of school age who were not sending their children to the school of which they were governors?
      Dr. Boyson: It is a fair question, but a difficult one. One says that it is difficult to give a breathing space for replying to it. If a child of a governor is attending another primary school in that area, he should not be a governor of that school. If it was a comprehensive area and a governor had his son or daughter in a school other than a comprehensive school in that area, he should not be a governor. The only distinction I would make would be where it was a selective school and the person was a governor of a non-selective school. There are problems. Serious consideration should be given in the election of governors to whether their children are in the schools and whether they are people who are backing it and want the system to work well. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made a valid point that we should bear in mind.
      Reference was also made to the subject of university appointments. There should be one university appointment or
      764
      an appointment from further education in all secondary schools. Similarly, reference was made to including a youth officer who was serving in the area, and employers and representatives of trade unions might also be considered so that those responsible for the school are aware of what people in the area want. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made the very interesting suggestion that people such as school meals supervisors and local shopkeepers whose windows get broken should also be considered, and why not?
      At the William Tyndale trial reference was made to the dinner ladies wanting more order in the school and objecting to children running along the tables at lunchtime. Such people can see how a school is running and whether there is reasonable and polite behaviour. I do not object to the suggestion, which is becoming an all-party one, that there should be dinner lady representation in this way on the governing body.
      I am personally not happy about an annual election. That provision slipped through among the other 90 or so new clauses. I am not completely happy about it. It takes at least a year to learn the role of a governor. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, North, Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and Macclesfield suggested that one year was not enough. I do not think that it is. The ILEA practice is that a parent governor is a governor for the same term as other governors. After the four-yearly elections and the new governing body being set up, the parents elect a governor who remains a governor so long as his child is attending the school. When he stands for election, he has to say in which year his child is.
      9.0 p.m.
      The danger of a postal ballot involving the parents of 1,500 or 2,000 pupils at a comprehensive school is to decide who knows whom. That is particularly difficult. This, too, was a matter brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. If the election was conducted at a meeting, in many cases it would be dominated by the political activists of whichever party controlled the area. We shall have to give more thought to whether it should be done by a postal ballot. However, these are minor matters.

      765
      The important factor is the acceptance of the general principle.
      We are now in the third day of these interesting discussions, and we had 83 hours of deep textual analysis in Committee. A great many suggestions have been put forward, many of them all-party one, designed to improve the Bill wherever possible within the present climate of opinion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is no longer with us. We are not dealing with the attitudes of the parties of 10 years ago. We on this side of the House have learned a few lessons, and we hope that in time Government supporters will learn. There is no doubt that a great many lessons have been learned on our side, and a political party must absorb the climate of opinion at any given time if it is to develop and continue to exist.
      This succession of new clauses dealing with the issuing of prospectuses, the right of appeal, how schools are to be run and the election of parent and teacher governors are all concerned with more general public control of and involvement in the running of our schools and, to repeat a phrase which I used last night, with more open government so that people can get to know and decide and help run affairs in their areas. By that, I do not mean by leaks. I mean by genuine open government.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that an increase in the number of parents on governing and managing bodies is likely to improve the standards of literacy, numeracy and behaviour in our schools?
      Dr. Boyson: I have no doubt about that. People want good academic schools for their children. They also want well-disciplined schools, and the best force for this is to bring in parent governors.
      I appeal to the Minister of State to absorb some of our attitude to these matters and not to bother with little footnotes about the way that we put them forward. This is the climate of the time, and I hope that he will accept our proposals. I hope that we shall have his assurance, even if he cannot accept this drafting, that the principle will be put into the Bill. If we do not have that assurance, I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to divide the House.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: The whole House will have welcomed the audible as well as the visible presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in an education debate once more. We are glad to have his expertise with us. I thought that he was perhaps unduly belligerent this evening, however. It may be that he has not learned that there is more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner than over those of us who have long been on the side of the angels. That is why in my opening remarks I adopted that ecumenical spirit which is so well known to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and me. I am always ecumenical with him when he comes over to join my camp.
      This debate has been a source of delight. However, it is sad that some of the real difficulty over the detail of these new clauses which I and my hon. Friend pointed out were not dealt with by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). We heard a little about the operation of postal ballots. That presents a difficulty. However, the two clauses have not been squared in terms of the fractions that are mentioned in them. We have not had a full explanation of how the system would work whereby a governor ceased to be a governor after perhaps only one year on the governing body merely because his child had left the school.
      Nor have those who spoke in the debate been clear about the distinction between parents by intent and parents by accident. I think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was somewhat confused about that. He seemed to think that, if someone appointed on a different principle was a parent of a child at the school, that demonstrated that the system had long operated. That is not what we are debating. We are debating an entirely new principle. That is what I mean when I refer to the appointment of parents by intent.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I ask the Minister to withdraw that disrespectful comment. My point was that many county councillors who opted to take up their right to serve on the boards of managers and governors often set out to gets parents on to those boards to benefit the school.
      Mr. Fowler: I was well aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. However, that was not the point he made in one of his earlier interventions when he referred to voluntary schools. The same applies to his present reformation. Neither the Government nor local government accepted the principle that parents should be represented as of right. That is what we are debating tonight.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North, in winding up the debate, asked whether dinner ladies should be represented. Let us broaden that. Should the non-teaching staff of schools be represented? That is a real point. It makes my case for me when I ask the House to reject the new
      clauses. The Taylor Committee is considering all these complex questions. The matter is best left until the Taylor Committee has reported. If the Opposition press this matter to a vote, I must ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. James Hamilton (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 256.

      Division No. 216.]

      AYES

      [9.9 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Allaun, Frank

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hatton, Frank

      Anderson, Donald

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Archer, Peter

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Denzil (Llaneill)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ashley, Jack

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hooley, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Horam, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Huckfield, Les

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bates, Alf

      Dolg, Peter

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bean, R. E.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hunter, Adam

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Dunn, James A.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunnett, Jack

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Eadie, Alex

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Edge, Geoff

      Janner, Greville

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ellis. John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      English, Michael

      John, Brynmor

      Bradley, Tom

      Ennais, David

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Jones, Dan (Burniey)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Judd, Frank

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Buchan, Norman

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kelley, Richard

      Buchanan, Richard

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kerr, Russell

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Flannery, Martin

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Campbell, Ian

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lamble, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      Ford, Ben

      Lamond, James

      Carmichael, Neil

      Forrester, John

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Carter, Ray

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrokin)

      Leadbltter, Ted

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Lee, John

      Cartwright, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Freud, Clement

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      George, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Upton, Marcus

      Coleman, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Concannon, J. D.

      Golding, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Conian, Bernard

      Gould, Bryan

      Luard, Evan

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Corbett, Robin

      Graham, Ted

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McElhone, Frank

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Cronin, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Cryer, Bob

      Harper, Joseph

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cunningham. G. (Islington S)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Madden, Max

      Pendry, Tom

      Swain, Thomas

      Magee, Bryan

      Perry, Ernest

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mahon, Simon

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Marquand, David

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester 8)

      Radlce, Giles

      Tomlinson, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Tomey, Tom

      Meacher, Michael

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Roberts Albert (Normanton)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mendeleon, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Millan, Bruce

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Ward, Michael

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Watkins, David

      Molloy, William

      Roper, John

      Watkinson, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Rose, Paul B.

      Weetch, Ken

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Weitzman, David

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wellbeloved, James

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, James (Pollok)

      Moyle, Roland

      Selby, Harry

      Whiteheed, Phillip

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitlock, William

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Newens, Stanley

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Noble, Mike

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Ogden, Eric

      Silverman, Julius

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Small, William

      Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Ovenden, John

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Owen, Dr David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Padley, Walter

      Stallard, A. W.

      Woof, Robert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Park, George

      Stoddart, David

      Parker, John

      Stott, Roger

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Parry, Robert

      Strong, Gavin

      Mr. Frank R. White and

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Mr. James Tinn,

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cope,John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Alison, Michael

      Cordle, John H.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gray, Hamish

      Arnold, Tom

      Corrie, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Costain, A. P.

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Awdry, Daniel

      Critchley, Julian

      Grist, Ian

      Baker, Kenneth

      Crouch, David

      Grylls, Michael

      Banks, Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hall, Sir John

      Bell, Ronald

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hampson. Dr Keith

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Haruiam, John

      Biffen, John

      Durant, Tony

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Blaker, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Body, Richard

      Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bottomley, Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Falrbalrn, Nicholas

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fairgrleve, Russell

      Hcseltine, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Farr, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Brittan, Leon

      Fell, Anthony

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Holland, Philip

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Hordem, Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Forman, Nigel

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Buck, Antony

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Hunt, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Fox, Marcus

      Hurd, Douglas

      Bulnter, Esmond

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Burden, F. A.

      Fry, Peter

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Butler, Adam (Sosworrh)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      James, David

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Channon, Paul

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Jopling, Michael

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Clegg, Walter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Cockcroft, John

      Gorst, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      770

      771

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Sims, Roger

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Neave, Airey

      Speed, Keith

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Nelson, Anthony

      Spence, John

      Knox, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Lamont, Norman

      Newton, Tony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Lane, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Sproat, Iain

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Nott, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Stanley, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Osborn, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stokes, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Loveridge, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Tapsell, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Percival, Ian

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Tebbit, Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Price, David (Eaatlelgh)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Macfarlane, Nell

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      MacGregor, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Raison, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Madel, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      van Straubenzee, w. R.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Marten, Nell

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, John

      Mather, Carol

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Maude, Angus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mawby, Ray

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Wall, Patrick

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wells, John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Mills, Peter

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Miscampbell, Norman

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Moate, Roger

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Monro, Hector

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Younger, Hon George

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Mr. W. Benyon and

      Morgan, Geraint

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Silvester, Fred

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 285.

      Division No. 217.]

      AYES

      [9.24 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Elliott, Sir William

      Alison, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Falrbairn, Nicholas

      Arnold, Tom

      Carlisle, Mark

      Farr, John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthoroe)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fell, Anthony

      Awdry, Daniel

      Channon, Paul

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Baker, Kenneth

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Banks, Robert

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Beith, A. J.

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bell, Ronald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bennett. Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Clegg, Walter

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cockcroft, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Benyon, W.

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Biffen, John

      Cope, John

      Freud, Clement

      Biggs-Davlson, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Fry, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Body, Richard

      Corrie, John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Costain, A. P.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Crouch, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Brittan, Leon

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Goodhew, Victor

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brotherton, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Gorst, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dunlop, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Durant, Tony

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Buchanan-Smlth, Alick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)

      Suck, Antony

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gray, Hamish

      Grieve, Percy

      Macfarlane, Nell

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      MacGregor, John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Grlmond, Rt Hon J,

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Grist, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Grylls, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Hall, Sir John

      Madel, David

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      St. John-Slevas, Norman

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Marten, Nell

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mates, Michael

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Hannam, John

      Mather, Carol

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Maude, Angus

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Mawby, Ray

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Shepherd, Colin

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Shersby, Michael

      Hawkins, Paul

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Silvester, Fred

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Sims, Roger

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Mills, Peter

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Heseltine, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hicks, Robert

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Speed, Keith

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Moate, Roger

      Spence, John

      Holland, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Hordern, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sproat, Iain

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Stainton, Keith

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stanley, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hunt, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stokes, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Neave, Airey

      Tapsell, Peter

      James, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Neubert, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grintead)

      Newton, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Normanton, Tom

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Nott, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Jopling, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Trotter, Neville

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Osborn, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      page, John (Harrow West)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Kimball, Marcus

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Viggers, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wakeham, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Percival, Ian

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wall, Patrick

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Knox, David

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lament, Norman

      Ralson, Timothy

      Wells, John

      Lane, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Bees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rees-Davles, W. R.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Younger, Hon George

      Lloyd, Ian

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Loveridge, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Luce, Richard

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mr. Jim Lester.

      McCrindle, Robert

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Cohen, Stanley

      Allaun, Frank

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Coleman, Donald

      Anderson, Donald

      Bradley, Tom

      Concannon, J. D.

      Archer, Peter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Conlan, Bernard

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ashley, Jack

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Buchan, Norman

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Buchanan, Richard

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cronin, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Campbell, Ian

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Bates, Alf

      Canavan, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Bean, R. E.

      Cant, R. B.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Carmaichael, Nell

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Carter, Ray

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cartwright, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      774

      775

      Deakins, Eric

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, William (Rugby)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Kerr, Russell

      Radice, Giles

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Dempsey, James

      Kinnock, Neil

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Doig, Peter

      Lambie, David

      Roberts Albert (Normanton)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lamond, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dunn, James A.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lee, John

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Roper, John

      Edge, Geoff

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rowlands, Ted

      English, Michael

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ennals, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Selby, Harry

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Luard, Evan

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Silverman, Julius

      Flannery, Martin

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Small, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Ford, Ben

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Forrester, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stallard, A. W.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Madden, Max

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

      Magee, Bryan

      Stoddart, David

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mahon, Simon

      Stott, Roger

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Strang, Gavin

      George, Bruce

      Marks, Kenneth

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Marquand, David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Swain, Thomas

      Golding, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Meacher, Michael

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlliery)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mendeleon, John

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Bruce

      Tinn, James

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Tomlinson, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)

      Toroey, Tom

      Harper, Joseph

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Molloy, William

      Wainwridht Edwin (Dearne V)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Moonman, Eric

      Hatton, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Moyle, Roland

      Ward, Michael

      Hooley, Frank

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Watkins, David

      Horam, John

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Watkinson, John

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Newens, Stanley

      Weetch, Ken

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Noble, Mike

      Weitzman, David

      Huckfield, Les

      Ogden, Eric

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Whitlock, William

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ovenden, John

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Dr David

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Padley, Walter

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertfoi

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Park, George

      Wilson, Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Parker, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Jenner, Greville

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Woodall, Alec

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Woof, Robert

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pendry, Tom

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      John, Brynmor

      Perry, Ernest

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Judd, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Question accordingly negaticed.

    New Clause 40

      EARLY ENTRY TO FURTHER EDUCATION
      'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of the Education Act 1962, where a person attains the age of 16 years on any date after the 1st September, he shall be free to leave his school provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date to a full-time course in further education'.—[Mr. St. John-Ste vas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may also take the following:
      New Clause 35—(Amendment to section 36: exemption from schooling); New Clause 41—(Apprenticeship at 16 years); New Clause 42—(Skilled training at 16 years); New Clause 43—(Service in Her Majesty's forces at 16 years); New Clause 44—(Last year of compulsory education); and Amendment No. 129, in Clause 10, page 5, line 29, at end insert:
      ',or who is undertaking a course of further education or similar instruction or training'.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is an extremely important set of new clauses concerning the school leaving age. They involve a great many issues of fundamental principle. We have had a very reasonable atmosphere in the House today and we have had important discussions on the situation relating to the disabled. I hope that this atmosphere will continue, because it is in the interests of the House that it should do so. However, in order to have an intelligent discussion on this matter it is vital that we should know the Government's intentions about this evening. How far do they intend to go?
      We are relying on the fact that a motion has been put down by the Government to suspend the 10 o'clock rule so that we can continue the debate after that time. It would be quite intolerable if for a third time we were to be faced with a situation in which the Government pull up stumps, and abandon their Bill, thus creating a situation in which it is impossible to pursue our discussions. We have 10 new clauses and 15 amendments, apart from the present one, still to discuss. Could we have an indication of the Government's intention?
      778
      Otherwise, it will be impossible for us to make intelligent contributions to the debate.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to tell him that I do not have any expectations of completing the remaining stages of the Bill during the present sitting. The discussion has been interesting, but it has at times been characterised more by quantity than by quality. Nevertheless, I am hoping that tonight the hon. Gentleman, in his characteristically concise and clear way, will give his views on this series of new clauses, and we shall have an opportunity to study them and return to them for further consideration at another time.
      Hon. Members: No! No!
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: We wish to discuss these clauses fully and reasonably, but not at excessive length. We would prefer to have a discussion on these clauses at a reasonable time of day, but rather than have no discussion at all we would want to discuss them at night. Is the Secretary of State proposing to move the suspension at 10 o'clock or not? The House should have the opportunity of hearing the, Government's intentions.
      Mr. Mulley: It is a most unusual procedure to anticipate intentions in this way. I do not think we can complete the discussion of these clauses at a reasonable hour, and I know that hon. Members on all sides want to catch trains tonight to their constituencies. [Interruption.] If the Opposition are so anxious to complete the remaining stages of the Bill, perhaps they will facilitate that through the usual channels, and then we can make suitable arrangements.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Once again the Secretary of State has evaded the issue, but let him be under no illusion that if it is he who is refusing to go on after 10 o'clock this evening he has no moral right to introduce a guillotine motion. It will be an abuse of the traditions of the House if he permits it to rise at the early hour of 10 o'clock and then comes back at a later stage complaining that he needs a guillotine to get the Bill through when he has here an Opposition who are willing to go on and discuss clauses in a reasonable way.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: Bring back Ted Short.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: This is such an important matter that the Government should give us the time to discuss it. That being the case, there can be no possible justification for stopping at 10 o'clock when there are sufficient of us here ready to ensure that the clause is properly debated.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have an opportunity at some other time to make a speech. We are now discussing New Clause 40.
      Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Throughout this debate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has taken, and very properly, half an hour or so to develop his opening speech. Is it not right that he should be allowed to do this tonight without being interrupted in the middle of his speech?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, the hon. Member is moving New Clause 40.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am moving it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was attempting to get some rationality and order into the discussion, because while it is one thing, on one occasion—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A moment ago I heard you call the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to move his new clause. He has said that that is his intention, but he is about to begin a discussion on something entirely different.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is anticipating what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) might say in moving his new clause. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his argument in his own way.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was merely endeavouring to establish the time framework of the debate so that I could arrange my arguments with some anticipation of when the discussion was intended to be concluded. On two occasions our discussions have been cut short. We have put up with that in a reasonable way, but it would be intolerable and ridiculous for it to happen a third time. Unfortunately, the Secretary
      780
      of State has lost all sense of the duties of his position and of his duties to the House. I trust that if he is entertaining any thought of introducing a guillotine he will abandon it, because to act in that manner would be to flout the traditions of the House.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Mulley: I have no intention of introducing a guillotine tonight or at any particular time, but the hon. Member has stressed this matter so much that we shall have to give it proper consideration.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Let the Minister answer a simple question. Will there be a suspension of the rule at 10 o'clock?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you call the hon. Member for Chelmsford to move the new clause? What motion are we supposed to be discussing? Is it a guillotine motion?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can advise the hon. Member. We are discussing New Clause 40.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious to all hon. Members where the responsibility will lie if we are unable to discuss these important clauses tonight.
      The Opposition's attitude to the raising of the school leaving age to 16 is quite clear. We support it in principle. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education when the reform was introduced. We stick by the principle but we believe it is sensible that, in the light of experience, we should make it more flexible. The object of the clause is that, while keeping the principle, we should make it sufficiently flexible to meet the objections of teachers, who should be listened to with respect as they have devoted their lives to education.
      New Clause 40 provides that the principle of education to the age of 16 will be fulfilled provided that a pupil has been accepted for entry to a full-time course of further education in the term following his sixteenth birthday. It puts into practice what should perhaps have been the original principle in law—not that

      781
      it should be necessary to attend school until the age of 16, but that education should continue until that age.
      It does not matter whether education takes place in a school, a college of further education or some other institute of learning, provided that the education is continued. New Clause 40 attempts to import that modification into the law. We are not wedded to our form wording. We put forward the new clause as a basis for discussion. If Ministers can find a better form of words enshrining the same principle, no one will be more delighted than my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what the new clause means? It seems to say that a pupil may leave school on his birthday provided that he has been accepted for a full-time course of further education starting the following term. That could result in an intermission of nearly a term in a pupil's education.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is designed for the Easter leavers. But the Minister of State must not spend his time picking holes in wording. What we expect from the hon. Gentleman is a declaration of Government policy on this matter. That is all the more important if our discussions on the clause tonight are to be transcated against our will. We shall not have time to go through these clauses word by word if the Government are to abandon their Bill for a third time and leave us—I would say in limbo, had it not been abolished by the Second Vatican Council—for another week.
      Sir David Renton: My hon. Friend has quite rightly asked for a declaration of Government policy on this matter. Has it occurred to him that the Government may have no policy for a change or improvement, and that equally we are entitled to the Government's views as to why they have no policy for such change?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. and learned Friend is so concise, eloquent and to the point. What can I add? I should be reduced to the state of a footnote if I attempted to add anything to that extremely pertient observation.
      I pass on to New Clause 41. We are consistent in these clauses. New Clause
      782
      41 retains the principle of education to the age of 16 but provides that, if there has been acceptance for a full-time approved apprenticeship and adequate arrangements have been made for that, the pupil will be abl eto leave school in order to take up that apprenticeship.
      New Clause 42 enshrines the same principle. It states that the school may be left if skilled training is provided.
      In New Clause 43 we again have the same principle of leaving at 16, but it adds that
      "he shall be free to leave the school"—
      that is to say, before that date—
      "provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date into Her Majesty's armed forces".
      The Forces have in the past provided an excellent education, in addition to the military training, for boys and girls in this position. There would, therefore, be no loss educationally. There would be a gain, I think, all round by these proposals. The Armed Services are anxious to do this.
      The further clauses concern the last year of compulsory education, and New Clause 44 is to be explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He will be able to speak for himself, provided that we are not guillotined this evening by the Government.
      I think it is extremely important not to be carried away, either on one side of the argument or on the other, or to take up an entrenched position. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who blazed a trail in this respect and was one of the first Members in the House to produce a Private Member's Bill suggesting a modification to this principle. I felt unable to support him then because I thought that the way in which it was presented was perhaps too definite for that period of time. But everything has evolved since then and I think we have now found, without any change of position from either of us, a meeting point. That is a quite remarkable thing to have done.
      Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. Moderation in all things.

      783
      On this particular matter, which is of great importance, I hope we shall be able to present a united approach so that we can meet the serious anxieties among teachers and in the education service. At the same time, we shall keep the principle of education to the age of 16, which is important.
      At this point I want to develop the argument in further detail on these new clauses. Now that we have started this debate and now that the principles have been laid before us, it would be helpful if we were able to continue it. I do not say that we should continue the debate to a very late hour. That is not desirable. However, to have an hour's debate on this important set of new clauses, when we have so many Opposition Members present, would be reasonable. We want to hear tonight the Government's attitude on these new clauses. We hoped that on this issue there would be a change of heart, if not of mind—if that be the appropriate word to apply to the Secretary of State.
      We would move the suspension ourselves were we able to do so. Unfortunately, that is confined to a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, the responsibility lies in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is a motion put down in the name of the leader of his own Government, the Prime Minister, and only he can facilitate the discussion. I am endeavouring to continue the debate.
      It is possible to take up a rigid line on the question of education to 16 years. One may say that there must be no change in the law whatsoever and that to change it would fatally weaken the principle. I do not think that that is a right attitude, though I understand it because so many people have worked for this principle. I also understand the regional concern that exists. It is, unfortunately, a fact that a far higher proportion of children in the South of England stay on for further education at schools than is the case in the North. That is a regional problem.
      I also understand the fears for working-class children whose parents may not be—though this by no means applies in every case—as strongly motivated as others to advance the education of their children. There may be pressures on those children to leave school
      784
      at an early age. All those fears are reasonable and should be taken into account. It is precisely because those fears are reasonably based that we think it would be wrong to alter the principle. However, we should make it more flexible.
      It is, in fact, the difference between the suspending and the dispensing power. To suspend the principle of education to 16 would be wrong. To allow dispensations from it would be right and reasonable. We have some historical examples on our side. Our late Majesty King James II kept the throne when he used the dispensing power, but when he used a suspending power he lost it. It is as well, first, to know history, because history is very far from bunk, and then to draw the right lessons from it.
      I hope, therefore, that we shall have a reasonable approach from the Minister. We shall listen with great interest to the contribution he has to make.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
  10 p.m.
  Mr. J. M. Craigen: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of revitalising the Forth and Clyde Canal. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is to reply to the debate.
  The Forth and Clyde Canal is a remarkable piece of engineering. Some 200 years after its construction it is no longer being commercially used, nor is it a cruising waterway. Under the 1968 Transport Act, the Forth and Clyde Canal qualified as a remainder waterway. I wonder what the engineers and navvies who constructed the canal at the end of the eighteenth century would think of the multitude of public authorities which are now involved in overseeing this 35-mile water link, especially since

  785
  the canal has been closed to traffic for the past 15 years.
  There are about a dozen public bodies involved with the planning or management of the canal. At times, it is almost easier to shake hands with an octopus than to identify one body which actually makes and carries out decisions regarding this waterway.
  My concern tonight is to secure far greater interest by the Department of the Environment in improvements to the canal and its surroundings and in promoting maximum safety measures. Only within the past 24 hours there was a tragic drowning of a young lad in part of the canal. I gather the matter is being treated as a fatal accident and is presently in the hands of the procurator fiscal. However, reports suggest that the rescuers were hampered by the amount of weeds in the area where the boy was drowned. I trust the Minister will agree that this gives added emphasis to the continuing need to strengthen the safety factors surrounding the canal and particularly to do something more to clear the weeds that have grown up.
  I would also wish to see the Department co-operate more closely with the local authorities in the area in developing this waterway as a local amenity for residents. I believe this would fit in closely with the City of Glasgow District Council's plans for open space and recreational development for the northwest of the city there is a great need for additional recreational facilities. Coincident with these improvements would be the attraction of industry.
  Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify responsibilities for the canal in respect of future policies. The public expenditure situation at the moment effectively rules out filling in the canal as some people would suggest. The last count that I have is that it would cost about £1 million per mile to fill it in. In any case, such a simplistic solution ignores the problem of land drainage and piping difficulties, and the requirements of a few remaining industrial concerns.
  The other prospect is the complete reopening to navigation. However, I believe this is very much in the hazy distance. In time it may be that we shall come to recognise the potential of a coast-to-coast water route between the Firth of
  786
  Clyde and the Firth of Forth. I know, however, that the British Waterways Board does not see navigation as a serious option in the foreseeable future.
  All I am suggesting tonight is that the Department of the Environment, in its consultations with the local authorities, should not entirely close this long-term option. Indeed, I would point out that the Department has not given a particularly favourable response to the representations from Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council regarding the setting up of a study team to take a long-term look at the potential of the canal.
  Tonight it would be more profitable if I concentrated on the more immediate future. There is a danger of ending up doing nothing anywhere rather than trying to do something somewhere along this stretch of canal. I would ask the Minister, in particular, to tackle the problem, through the British Waterways Board, of clearing up the weed-ridden parts of the canal from a safety point of view, to encourage the board to undertake more repairs to parts of the stone retaining walls which are badly damaged, and to seek improvements to the towpaths so that they would become more suitable for walking as well as safer. I would ask him to make use of gabions and adjust the level of the water on certain stretches, which would improve the safety factors surrounding the canal.
  These were points which I had the opportunity of taking up at the end of March with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board in London. He gave every indication of good will on his part to try to do something along these lines. Further features which could be attended to would be the clearance of much of the flotsam on the surface of the canal and special attention to the Maryhill locks, a remarkable historical centrepiece, but in need of certain repairs including, for example, the re-erection of handrails which I understand were taken down some time ago because they became defective. It would be a step towards better safety if they were to be re-erected at appropriate distance from the locks.
  I am not thinking in terms of millons of pounds because I know the money is not available these days. The steps I should like to be taken require more

  787
  imagination than has perhaps been evidenced in the past. During the Glasgow spring holiday this year there was a remarkable turnout at a Canal Rally in Maryhill, which was part of the Clyde Fair organised by Radio Clyde. About £800 has been raised and used by many of the volunteers who have done a great deal of work to improve the facilities on the canal.
  As a matter of policy the British Waterways Board does not encourage job creation schemes undertaken by voluntary bodies. I hope that perhaps we shall be able to make use of the Scottish Development Agency in facilitating such work. The agency indicated earlier this year that it was prepared to sponsor suitable job creation schemes.
  In passing I would say that in my experience that other major landowner, British Rail, which comes under the Department of the Environment, is the slowest moving body on wheels in relation to making improvements. The experience of Wyndford Community Council in dealing with the board over a job creation scheme for the improvement of the site of the former Maryhill Central Station has been very disappointing.
  The British Waterways Board owns the Firhill Basin which is next to Firhill Park, which my hon. Friend will know as the grounds of the Partick Thistle Football Club. The basin and grounds are not in the Maryhill constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael). I have had a word with him and he is in agreement with me that the ideas put forward by Partick Thistle Football Club in the last few months for the development of its ground and social club facilities should be encouraged.
  The club hopes to combine with the local authorities over establishing leisure developments which would include a leisure pool, sports hall, pleasure grounds, cycle track and something of a neighbourhood park. This could have a major and beneficial impact on the North Kelvin area and in the Wester Common area which is part of my constituency.
  I hope, therefore, that the British Waterways Board will respond as favourably as possible to any representations
  788
  that Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council may make on this subject. I understand the board has a duty to assist local authorities wherever possible.
  Perhaps I have intruded into areas that are not the concern of my hon. Friend because, although he is Minister of State with responsibility for sport and recreation, he is not Scotland's Minister of State for Sport and Recreation. Therefore, his White Paper on sport and recreation, which was published last August, does not apply to Scotland. Even so, I hope that where the Department of the Environment has a responsibility, it will act in conjunction with the local authority, particularly Glasgow District Council which I know is anxious to combine the waterway link with its own development plans for open space and recreation in the north-west of the city.
  It was Mr. Arthur Oldham, the then director of parks for the former Glasgow Corporation, who was particuarly anxious to see a fresh look taken at the potential of the canal. Two reports were published by the corporation on the work undertaken by William Gillespie and Associates into the character and future use of the canal. Both reports identified the canal as an amenity rather than a liability. In respect of the British Waterways Board joint working party with local authorities and other interested bodies, perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he would encourage the board to permit some participation by voluntary bodies, a number of which have shown great interest in recent years and have participated in activities connected with the canal.
  There is the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, for example, whose restoration convener, Mr. Richard Davies, has been particularly active. Then there is the New Glasgow Society in which Mr. Gordon Borthwick, in his year as chairman, has shown a keen interest. There is the new Maryhill Association and its secretary, Mr. David Forrester. All those persons and countless others have shown an interest. It is not simply a question of money. It is also a matter of trying to tap their enthusiasm and the effort they have been prepared to put into these matters.
  I have been talking largely about the main section of the canal which flows

  789
  from firth to firth, with one or two obstacles. But the short Glasgow branch which goes into the city centre is an eyesore in parts. Originally, it was intended that much of that section should be filled in for the Maryhill motorway. However, the uncertainties over the future growth of the private motor car apart, public expenditure has effectively squeezed out motorway development and we now have a situation where the proposed Maryhill motorway is no more than a ghost track. I hope, therefore, that the board will encourage a number of improvements to that section of the canal, which is not particularly pleasant for the people who have to live nearby.
  There are a great many uncertainties surrounding the future of the canal. First, we have the consultative document which the Minister published recently—the Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales. But that document affects Scotland as well. It proposes merging the British Waterways Board into a new national water authority. It also questions the future of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.
  The headquarters of the British Waterways Board in Scotland lies just within my constituency and, although the board has only four canals in Scotland to look after, it will be placed in a peculiar position over the Scottish dimension. Mr. Brian Davenport, the engineer, and his staff, do a good job. I believe that the Convention of Local Authorities has made representations to the Department of the Environment on this very part of the consultative document.
  Then the White Paper on devolution proposes to transfer to a Scottish Assembly the responsibilities for Scottish inland waterways. No doubt having heard me this evening, the Minister will be glad to get rid of the responsibilities which his Department has in Scotland. However, I think that he will agree with me that there is considerable confusion over the control of the canal, because apart from the Minister, the district councils and the Strathclyde and the Central Regional authorities, the Scottish Office has an important responsibility as the Department of State with the planning oversight on land development matters and it has certain powers to grant-aid local authorities in respect of derelict sites. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend
  790
  will be passing on to the Scottish Office some of the comments which are more pertinent to it.
  There is the feeling among some of my English colleagues that the civil servants at the Department of the Environment are not all that keen on canals. I hope that that is an unfair slander and that the Minister will give the lie to that and to any suggestion that he himself is not interested in the future development of canals.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising the question of the Forth and Clyde Canal. First, I join him in saying how sad it is that on the eve of this Adjournment debate one of his young constituents should die in the canal. On behalf of the Government, I extend to my hon. Friend's constituents our considerable sympathy in the matter. 'That highlights many of the problems on which my hon. Friend has had correspondence and discussions with me.
  I shall deal with the immediate past history of the canal. It is a remainder waterway. It is administered by the British Waterways Board. It was legally closed to navigation in 1962. The Transport Act 1968 classified certain of the board's waterways for commercial use and cruising. It left the Forth and Clyde as a remainder waterway.
  The board is required, under Section 107 of the Act, to deal with the canal in the most economical manner possible, whether by retaining and managing it, consistent with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it. I emphasise that the board has no duty to provide for navigation unless that is the most economical treatment, which, I am advised, seems unlikely. That is the legal and immediate historical background.
  I shall now say a word on the physical condition of the canal. Numerous crossings of the waterway have been fixed, which form obstruction to navigation. Some lengths of the canal have been filled in. In addition, the water level has had to be reduced to stop erosion of the banks

  791
  at critical points where breaches could occur. The House will therefore realise the great difficulty that exists with the canal.
  Various bodies such as the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council have contemplated the restoration of through navigation. The council suggested that in its October 1974 report. But even that body had to accept the knowledge of numerous obstructions to true navigation which had been identified and which I now mention. My Department's order-of-cost assessment at that time—October 1974—to deal with the canal was in the region of £20 million. Therefore, my hon. Friend will immediately see the extent of the difficulty.
  My Department, the Scottish Development Department, the British Waterways Board and the Scottish regional authorities and district council, which must foot most of the restoration bill, recognise that through navigation is no longer feasible. Waterways, even without through navigation, may be put to good use for other forms of recreation and amenity. I am confident that the British Waterways Board would want to do all it can in that respect.
  I thought that my hon. Friend's outline of the scheme, of which I had no previous knowledge and which seemed to involve Partick Thistle and the general leisure complex, was exactly the kind of scheme which I tried to encourage in my White Paper—although that does not apply to Scotland. As my White Paper on sport and recreation and my consultation document on the future of the waterways have the support of the British Waterways Board, I am sure that within its financial constraints the hoard would wish to be positive in its approach to any scheme. I shall convey my hon. Friend's thoughts to those bodies and to the Scottish Office, which already has responsibility for local government and regional matters in Scotland.
  As we have few canals in the national network system, responsibility for the entire canal system rests with my Department. I am glad to report that we work in close co-operation with our Scottish colleagues.
  I know that my hon. Friend has been in touch with the Chairman of the British
  792
  Waterways Board. He has also been in touch with the riparian owners, with the regional and local authorities and with the Scottish Countryside Commission, in the hope of preparing an overall plan.
  My colleagues in the Scottish Office agree with me that these matters are best worked out initially between the authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board. I hope that we shall soon have a clear picture of how the waterway could be brought back so far as possible into use for recreation and amenity. These are attractive objectives which I fully support. I believe that our canal system, which was created in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution to provide cheap transportation, now has attractive recreation and leisure possibilities.
  Therefore, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend ask about job creation schemes. I recently had the pleasure of opening two stretches of canal in England in which I think job creation programmes played a part. Certainly, the harnessing of the tremendous enthusiasm of volunteers has been of major significance. It is very heartening to find tens of thousands of people who will give up part of their weekends and holidays over the year to clear canals and open them up for navigation, in co-operation with the local authorities, put the towpaths in good order, put a few chairs there and make them become an agreeable part of the local environment.
  My hon. Friend told the House about the unfortunate fatality in the canal. It has been part of our experience that the more we can open up canals, put them in good order, have them used and encourage people to take a walk along them, the better from a safety point of view. I have recently seen an example in Lancashire and Cheshire where a pub has been provided and people are encouraged to take the air and look at the water, which the British like to do. It is an interesting sidelight that this seems to increase public safety, because more people are there and are able to intervene immediately when an occasional accident occur.
  My hon. Friend talked about the need to raise the water level in the canal. I know that he has had conversations with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board. I understand that the level had

  793
  to be lowered to prevent the risk of a breach through a serious deterioration of the canal system.
  I think my hon. Friend said that my civil servants and I had enthusiasm for canals. The reason why the Government propose in their consultation document that the British Waterways Board network should go into the water industry as a whole and become part of the National Water Authority is exactly that we have that enthusiasm. There is no division among Ministers, and I do not think that there is any division among my advisers, on that point.
  There is a backlog of maintenance on our waterways amounting to many millions of pounds. One of the reasons for our recommendations is that we must find the money to put the situation right. Otherwise, the canals will continue to decay. Moreover, people want to sail through the country on our canal system and want a national navigation authority.
  794
  We want to keep the canals a national entity. They are part of our national heritage and should be seen in that light. But we must face the facts of life. I have just seen the report of the consultants on the backlog of maintenance. I have no doubt that the results of their thinking will see the light of day relatively soon. The problem can be dealt with properly only by integrating the canal system into the water industry as a whole.
  This has been a very useful debate. I thank my hon. Friend for raising these matters.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  BRENTWOOD
  BRENTWOOD
  CHORLEY
  CHORLEY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
  HEMEL HEMPSTEAD
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)
  DONNA NOOK
  DONNA NOOK
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  OIL AND GAS RIGS (SAFETY)
  OIL AND GAS RIGS (SAFETY)
  CONSTRUCTION EXPORTS
  CONSTRUCTION EXPORTS
  SERVICES (MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS)
  SERVICES (MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
ENVIRONMENT
  Otters
  Otters
  House Building
  House Building
  New Towns (Housing Lists)
  New Towns (Housing Lists)
  Motor Vehicles (Metrication)
  Motor Vehicles (Metrication)
  Railways
  Railways
  House Building (Half-and-half Schemes)
  House Building (Half-and-half Schemes)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Leisure Plots
  Leisure Plots
  Smog (Traffic Fumes)
  Smog (Traffic Fumes)
  Sport and Recreation (Disabled Persons)
  Sport and Recreation (Disabled Persons)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Service College (Edinburgh Centre)
  Civil Service College (Edinburgh Centre)
DEFENCE
  Army Cadet Force (Column 88)
  Army Cadet Force (Column 88)
  RAF Boulmer
  RAF Boulmer
  Scholarships
  Scholarships
  Pensions (Parity)
  Pensions (Parity)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
ENERGY
  Prepayment Meters
  Prepayment Meters
  Gas and Electricity (Showroom Services)
  Gas and Electricity (Showroom Services)
  British Petroleum (Participation Talks)
  British Petroleum (Participation Talks)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  "Anglia"
  "Anglia"
  Welsh Centre for International Affairs
  Welsh Centre for International Affairs
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police Precept
  Metropolitan Police Precept
  Liverpool Prison
  Liverpool Prison
  Prisons (Exercise and Recreation)
  Prisons (Exercise and Recreation)
  United Kingdom Citizens Overseas
  United Kingdom Citizens Overseas
  Mr. Roy Came
  Mr. Roy Came
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
  Prison Officers (Recruitment)
  Prison Officers (Recruitment)
  Discharged Prisoners
  Discharged Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Prison and Borstal Welfare Officers
  Prison and Borstal Welfare Officers
  Prison Department (Technical Officers)
  Prison Department (Technical Officers)
  Prisoners (Prison Building Project)
  Prisoners (Prison Building Project)
  Prison Industries
  Prison Industries
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  European Community Ministers of the Interior
  European Community Ministers of the Interior
TRADE
  Pilotage
  Pilotage
  Clothes
  Clothes
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Brentford Nylon (David Whitehead)
  Brentford Nylon (David Whitehead)
  Birmingham Airport
  Birmingham Airport
SCOTLAND
  Oil Revenues (Employment)
  Oil Revenues (Employment)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Probation
  Probation
  Deaf Children (Education)
  Deaf Children (Education)
  Doon Valley (Environmental Projects)
  Doon Valley (Environmental Projects)
  Scottish Development Agency and Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Scottish Development Agency and Highlands and Islands Development Board
  GEC Factories, Fife
  GEC Factories, Fife
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security Forces and Police
  Security Forces and Police
  Rent Rebate Scheme
  Rent Rebate Scheme
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Long-term Security Problems (Report)
  Long-term Security Problems (Report)
  Forest Amenities
  Forest Amenities
  Angling Facilities
  Angling Facilities
  Terrorist Murders
  Terrorist Murders
  RUC Reserve
  RUC Reserve
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Pension Books
  Pension Books
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  Arms and Explosives (Smuggling)
  Arms and Explosives (Smuggling)
  Police Authority
  Police Authority
  Prosecution Witnesses
  Prosecution Witnesses
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Employment Income
  Employment Income
  Forms
  Forms
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Arab Investment
  Arab Investment
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Debt Interest
  Debt Interest
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Domestic Credit
  Domestic Credit
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  Sterling Holdings
  Sterling Holdings
  Banking Supervision
  Banking Supervision
  Oil-Related Employment
  Oil-Related Employment
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 1975
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 1975
  MR. JOHN BANKS
  MR. JOHN BANKS
  TERRORIST OFFENCES
  TERRORIST OFFENCES
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation (Self-employed Sponsors)
  Job Creation (Self-employed Sponsors)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Wages and Prices
  Wages and Prices
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Young Persons (Consultative Document)
  Young Persons (Consultative Document)
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Osteo-arthritis (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Osteo-arthritis (Hospital Waiting Lists)
  Doctors (Population Ratio)
  Doctors (Population Ratio)
  Psycho-surgery
  Psycho-surgery
  Mrs. Adele Steen
  Mrs. Adele Steen
  Therapy (Sport)
  Therapy (Sport)
  Departmental Criteria Codes
  Departmental Criteria Codes
  Eye Hospital Services (Birmingham)
  Eye Hospital Services (Birmingham)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  English Language Teaching
  English Language Teaching
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  William Tyndale School (Inquiry)
  William Tyndale School (Inquiry)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Sports Therapy (Disabled Persons)
  Sports Therapy (Disabled Persons)
INDUSTRY
  Oil (Income Disposal)
  Oil (Income Disposal)
  Telephones
  Telephones
  HS146 Aircraft
  HS146 Aircraft
  Military Equipment Firms (Aid)
  Military Equipment Firms (Aid)
  Companies (NEB Shareholdings)
  Companies (NEB Shareholdings)
  Government Assistance
  Government Assistance
  Brentford Nylons
  Brentford Nylons
  Dow Chemicals, King's Lynn
  Dow Chemicals, King's Lynn
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
WALES
  Bronglais Hospital
  Bronglais Hospital
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  Butter Imports
  Butter Imports
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Forestry Commission (Chairman)
  Forestry Commission (Chairman)
  Sugar (Prices)
  Sugar (Prices)
  Milk Products (Intervention Support)
  Milk Products (Intervention Support)
  Agricultural Land (Rating)
  Agricultural Land (Rating)

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

CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS IN SHIPS
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their forecast of the number of ships carrying —

(a)radio-active materials; and

(b)liquefied, natural or petroleum gas,

which will pass through British waters (out to 12 nautical miles) during the next 20 years; whether they are satisfied that no special policing, pilotage or other arrangements are necessary for these appallingly dangerous cargoes, and if so, why.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is not possible to give a valid forecast, though we are taking full account of the potential risks. Comprehensive safety requirements for the carriage of such materials are contained in the official publication, Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Ships. These requirements are reinforced by the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules 1965 and are kept under constant review by an expert Standing Advisory Committee. Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the need to pay special attention to all aspects of safety, including ship design, navigation and pilotage, concerned with the carriage of dangerous cargoes in ships, and will continue to play an active role in encouraging the formulation and improvement of regulations, international Codes of Practice and safety standards generally in this important field.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Do these regulations bite on the ships which
864
go through British waters without touching British ports? Do the Government remember that even three years ago the National Physical Laboratory estimated that 34 per cent. of ships going through the Channel were carrying dangerous cargoes? Are the Government aware that 60 per cent. of all accidents at sea take place in North-West European waters? Why are the Government letting slip an opportunity which may not recur for 20 years to introduce during the course of UNCLOS proper regulations which will bite on innocent passage through territorial waters?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first question is, Yes. I would reject any suggestion on his part that the Government are in any way complacent on this matter, including the question of the control of traffic through the Dover Strait. In conjunction with the French, we monitor traffic by radar and give safety forecasts and there has been a considerable improvement over recent years. However, I will look at the points which my noble friend has raised and, if it is helpful, I will write to him about them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, following up the question of my noble friend, may I ask whether there is any provision under the Dangerous Cargoes Act that the countries under whose flags those ships are sailing should notify the Government of the toxicity of the cargoes they carry? Also, is my noble friend Lord Oram aware that, for instance, in the Adriatic there are already some most noxious and toxic barrels of material which were dumped there on the Borders of Yugoslavia and Italy and which could endanger the whole Mediterranean unless they are recovered ? Could not some international organisation recover such toxic cargoes which may have been sunk in coastal waters?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware of the suggestion that notification under an early warning system might be helpful in this matter, but my noble friend should be aware that any such system would involve an enormous application of resources. This has to be weighed against the very real safety needs, but I do not think that, when they are examined, that extent of effort is considered to be necessary or possible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, as the years go by, there will be increasing traffic in these substances, particularly in liquified natural gas and petroleum? Have not the Government been rather complacent about this? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that the Government were letting an opportunity slip by: is monitoring really the same as taking charge of the situation and dealing with it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, of course there is the prospect that this kind of traffic will increase. The Government are fully aware of that prospect and are looking to that situation. That is why, far from being complacent about it, we are particularly active in the international fora concerned with these matters and are taking a lead in seeking improved regulations.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, are the Government paying attention to the fact that the risk of accident almost certainly goes up by at least the square of the volume of traffic and that, consequently, if one doubles the traffic one does not merely double the risk but one multiplies it by at least four?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that those who are examining these problems in detail are aware of the kind of proportions that my noble friend has illustrated to the House.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not the position really a matter of accepting a continuation of great patience and great pressures? In a democratic world, faced with the fact that all these various countries are independent and have to be persuaded, we must continue that international persuasion relentlessly, even as in this country we have to go on persuading the trade unions?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, without particular reference to the last few words of the noble Viscount, I agree with him that success in these matters depends on international collaboration, and that, in this as in all fields, is necessarily a slow, painstaking business. I sought to indicate to the House that we are successfully engaged on that slow and painstaking exercise.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in view of the concern over this matter, the British Council of Shipping, which represents the vast body of shipowners in the United Kingdom, has after consultation with the Government expressed its satisfaction with the arrangements?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I cannot give any specific answer to my noble friend, but I shall make inquiries and let him know.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord look back by way of analogy at the situation as regards the safety of oil rigs? I know that this point is not covered by this Question, but there is an analogy, because two years ago the noble Lord opposite, occupying that seat on the Front Bench, said that the safety of rigs was really no problem at all; it did not matter. Now he is taking it very seriously. We are asking the noble Lord to take this matter very seriously and to get a move on with it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have given the House the assurance that we take this matter very seriously and we are getting a move on, subject to the considerations of international collaboration which, obviously, are not entirely in our control. We are playing our part.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's statement that the dangerous cargo regulations bite on ships going through British territorial waters but not touching British ports, can he tell the House how many such ships have been stopped and searched in order to enforce those regulations?
Lord ORAM: Not without notice, I am afraid, my Lords.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the seamen's organisations have expressed any views upon this matter?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that they have, but I have not had them drawn to my particular attention in connection with this Question.

NORTH SEA: CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
3.15 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any British local authorities are taking up the proposal of the chief Burgomaster of Hamburg for a conference of cities having access to the North Sea.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, there has not yet been a firm proposal from the Burgomaster. If a conference were convened it would be up to local authorities to decide whether to accept any invitiation they receive.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government agree that, subject to obvious limitations of expenditure, this would be a useful idea and that British cities might hopefully take it up, if invited?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; in general we think — and I certainly think — that the idea is extremely attractive and interesting. But the proposals are not yet well enough advanced for me to he able to comment on them in any detail.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the City of Hamburg is notorious for certain of the amenities that it provides, and that it would not be a good idea to contaminate the minds of our own councils?

HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE
3.16 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 to state when they propose to publish the views of the Government's Inter-Departmental Working Party on Homeless Young People.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in another place on Tuesday last, 29th June, that he will make a Statement regarding publication of the Report of the Working Group on Homeless Young People in the near future.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he consider having the Report published for the general public and persons like myself who are interested in running centres for homeless people, so that we may have full knowledge when it comes to discussion of the final paper?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point of view of the noble Baroness, and this matter had been discussed at some length. I wish to remind your Lordships that six Government Departments were involved in this Working Group, together with a representative of the local authorities association, plus a number of people representing voluntary effort in this field. The Report covers a very wide area of discussion and the discussion has been in depth. It raises questions such as the housing aspect, the provision of hostel accommodation of various kinds, and it involves local authorities. There is the question of manpower expenditure, and my right honourable friend feels that he must give his colleagues in the other Government Departments an opportunity of considering in detail what the Report says, what recommendations it makes, and how best to implement them, before publishing the Report for general discussion.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that we are supposed to be engaged in open Government and that the more interesting this Report is, and the wider it goes, the more important it is for the public to know what it contains. I quite understand that he no doubt feels that he must give the Government Departments concerned first look, but will he not accept that the scope of the Report and the urgency of this problem make it abundantly necessary that the Report should be published at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Report has been in the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for only about a month now, and therefore it has been in the hands of other Government Departments for the same period. Bearing in mind what Government Departments have to do in a variety of fields these days, that is not a long time. I should have thought that there is some merit in my right honourable friend getting the views of his colleagues in other Departments, so that when the announcement is made with regard to publication he will be in a position to give some comments and observations on the recommendations and what is to be done to implement them.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, pending that publication, has the Minister any further information to give the House on the subject raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in this connection concerning the co-operation, or non co-operation, of British Rail in providing proper information services for the homeless, particularly at Euston Station?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the right reverend Prelate, I have to say that the British Railways Board have said that they are unable to agree to the proposed establishment of an information booth at Euston. The situation, in view of their decision, which we regard to be a situation of some urgency, means that we have had to do some re-thinking. I would hope that your Lordships will feel, because of my reply, that I should not he pressed further at this stage on this matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord understand that his last answer will cause very deep concern in many quarters of the House? Will the noble Lord draw special attention to the problems of Euston and the metropolis raised by the book Johnnie Go Home, and will he not ask British Rail to accept the sort of social responsibility that we always used to be assured would he shown by nationalised industries?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned
870
Lord's intervention on this matter. Their decision causes us some very real concern, and I will convey to my right honourable friend precisely what the noble and learned Lord has said.

BUS FARE INCREASES
3.21 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and, in case it is not clear, the word " prices " refers, of course, to the price of tickets; that is, fares.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the 26 per cent. average increase in prices referred to in notices displayed in London buses falls within the Government's guidelines for containing the cost of living to the consumer.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. In accordance with the counter-inflation legislation, London Transport notified the Price Commission in April last of its intention to increase bus fares by an average of 26 per cent. from the 20th June 1976. The Commission have considered the case, and they found no cause for intervention under the Price Code.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may we take it from the noble Baroness's reply that the further sentence on these notices, that:
"This increase is to meet increased costs",
applies right across the whole field of industry, in their view?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I can answer only so far as London Transport is concerned. I would remind noble Lords that most London Transport bus fares were frozen between January 1972 and March 1975, and that in November 1974 it faced an anticipated deficit of some £52 million. The GLC were then forced to abandon their fare freeze, and they agreed on an average overall fare increase in the ordinary fares of 30 per cent. from the 23rd March 1975. Despite this, the deficit continued to rise, and further increases averaging 26 per cent. took effect from the 2nd November. Even with these increases, it was necessary

871
for the GLC and the Government to make grants totalling £93 million towards fares relief.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness correct in saying that London bus fares were frozen between 1972 and 1975? Is she aware that that is not my experience? I recall being asked to pay increased fares on several occasions.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord travelled outside London Transport areas, but my information is that the fares freeze was between January 1972 and March 1975, and that fares did not keep abreast of costs, which rose substantially.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by reason of his years, which are even more advanced than my own, entitled to travel free on London Transport?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, and also the noble and learned Lord, that I never take advantage of concessions?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we shall remind my noble friend of that later.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will repeat a Statement on the disclosure of Cabinet Documents.
STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3 a, and passed.
RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL [H.L.]
Considered on Report.
RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
THEATRES TRUST BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES BILL
3.26 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill, as provided for in Clause 1, is to renew for another five years the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. These Acts may be collectively referred to as "the Service Discipline Acts ", but they encompass more than discipline in the narrow sense of the term. The provisions of these Acts help to provide a general legal framework within which members of the three Armed Forces spend their Service lives wherever they may be; and civilians accompanying our forces overseas also fall within their scope.
There is general agreement, I hope and believe, that the quinquennial system of Armed Forces Bills works well. It provides a regular and well-spaced opportunity for looking at the operation of the Service Discipline Acts, and for updating or amending them where such a need is indicated. In addition, the quinquennial system helps to ensure that, as far as possible, the rules that determine how indiscipline is dealt with in the Services reflect and keep pace with civil experience and practice. Within each five-year period, continuation in force of these Acts is made subject to annual renewal by Affirmative Resolution. The annual continuation order system provided in Clause 1 accords with past practice, although a slight alteration of the timing, whereby the annual continuation orders will be required to be passed by the end of

873
August, will now lend greater flexibility to this procedure within the timetable of the Parliamentary Session. The need for annual renewal gives to Parliament an additional opportunity to debate matters more widely related to Service discipline.
The examination of the Service Discipline Acts that preceded this Armed Forces Bill suggested a number of areas, of varying significance, where changes are desirable. The rest of the Bill is devoted to these changes. They are generally designed to improve the working of the Service Discipline Acts, and thus to benefit those subject to them. Some of the provisions are minor — seeking to clarify areas of possible legal ambiguity, to rationalise various administrative or judicial procedures, or to rectify certain anomalies in the different Services —and I do not propose, unless noble Lords wish it in any particular instance, to discuss them in detail now. I would prefer, instead, to dwell on what are considered the more important provisions of the Bill.
I should like first to mention Clause 4 and Schedule 2, under which members of Queen Alexandra's Royal Nursing Service and of the Women's Royal Naval Service are to become fully subject to the Naval Discipline Act. For the first time they are included legally as members of "Her Majesty's Naval forces ". Their status will therefore broadly accord with that of their sister Services in the Army and the Royal Air Force. I hope noble Lords will agree that the QARNNS and WRNS, both of whom continue to perform a valuable and distinguished role, will benefit from these provisions.
In 1971 the Armed Forces Act made a significant change in the law. Under it the offence-making sections of the Army and Air Force Acts and of the Naval Discipline Act were made virtually identical. Thus the specific argument formerly used for the WRNS and QARNNS to retain their own voluntary codes —that is, because the Articles of War in the Naval Discipline Act were to harsh to be applied to women —no longer applies. We are therefore using the first opportunity since 1972 to make the appropriate changes.
Under the present disciplinary codes of the QARNNS and WRNS, their members can suffer from a number of disadvantages
874
as regards legal rights. For example, they lack the protection afforded by the Naval Discipline Act, having no immunity from trial in the civil courts for an offence that in substance may already have been dealt with administratively in the Service; and they currently have no statutory rgiht of complaint. These disadvantages —other than those rehearsed on pages 32 to 33 of the Select Committee Report produced in another place —will disappear when the current provisions are enacted.
The proposals are in line with the results of the general review of the future of the WRNS that was completed last year. Noble Lords may be aware that last July the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy said in another place:
"The WRNS continues to make an indispensable contribution to the efficient work of the Navy. Its role and organisation have recently been thoroughly reviewed. It has been decided that it should in future be more closely integrated into the naval Service, so sharing both the greater opportunities and the fuller obligations of such Service. We are actively considering what new jobs it could undertake, and we shall lay before Parliament proposals to bring it and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service — with all its fine traditions —within the ambit of the Naval Discipline Act. I believe this to be a logical and timely step which will bring the WRNS into line with the women of the two other Services." —[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/75; col. 552.]
The present proposals are, as I say, in line with the greater opportunities my honourable friend was then speaking of. I would emphasise that they in no way go against the proud and illustrious traditions and history of the QARNNS and WRNS; they should rather be seen as a part of the continuing development of their notable contribution to the defence of the nation.
My Lords, I turn now to Clause 5, which seeks to increase the summary powers of commanding officers in the Royal Marines, the Army, and the RAF. In 1971 the Select Committee which examined the last Armed Forces Bill recommended that the Department consider the desirability of increased powers for such commanding officers. Since 1971, a thorough examination, involving consultation at various Service levels both in this country and overseas, has taken place, and has resulted in the proposals now before the House. These are justifiable on several grounds. There are at present a number of essentially Service

875
offences, such as absence without leave, which, though legally straightforward are tried by court-martial. In 90 per cent. of such cases the accused pleads guilty. The seriousness of such offences does not always justify the full panoply of court-martial proceedings with the inevitable delays, formality and man-hours they involve. Your Lordships will be aware of the tendency in civil courts for cases to be taken in the lowest appropriate level of court. The proposals in Clause 5 follow this trend by permitting summary disposal as a more suitable way of dealing speedily, effectively and justly with a number of those disciplinary cases that are presently tried by court-martial.
It is difficult to forecast accurately the annual savings in courts-martial that these provisions will effect since in all cases where the extended powers might be exercised the accused will have the right to opt for trial by court-martial. Tentative estimates based on past figures suggest a possible annual saving of some 300 or more Army and RAF courts-martial. This would represent in the region of 15 per cent. of the annual number of courts-martial, and in the interests of the best use of resources would contribute a useful saving in administrative efficiency and officer time.
However, these proposals are not advanced merely in the interests of administrative savings, nor is there any intention to try to get justice "on the cheap ". If we felt that continuation unchanged of the existing system was vital to ensuring that the disciplinary arrangements continued to work in a just way, there would be no hesitation about deploying whatever resources were required to that end. But we believe, on the contrary, that the new arrangements will hold significant advantages for the accused as well, especially since he will, in any case where the extended powers might be exercised, always have the option of trial by court-martial. We consider, however, that in many cases the accused will prefer to be dealt with more quickly and less formally by his own commanding officer: by an officer whom he knows, and who knows him and his circumstances. If he chooses so to be dealt with, he will additionally avoid the greater stigma that trial by court-martial, in the enclosed Service community, inevitably incurs. Thus, we be
876
lieve—and the Select Committee of another place endorsed this belief — that the accused himself will see the advantage of and benefit from the proposals in Clause 5.
In advancing these proposals the Department has been fully conscious of the need to safeguard the rights of the accused at summary proceedings. As I say, there is no intention to erode these rights, or to by-pass the demands of justice. I have already mentioned —and I do not apologise for repeating myself, since the right is of paramount importance —that in cases where the summary powers may be exercised, the accused may opt for court-martial trial. In addition, where the extended summary powers of detention may be applied new safeguards are to be introduced as follows: first, an abstract or summary of evidence is to be prepared; secondly, legal advice on the case is to be obtained by the commanding officer; thirdly, higher authority must have granted the commanding officer permission to use the extended power of detention; fourthly, the extended power shall be used only w here the accused does not dispute that the material facts alleged against him are true, or that such facts constitute the charge brought; and, finally, any case where the extended power of detention has been used will be reviewed under Section 115 of the 1955 Acts.
These safeguards will always apply where the extended summary powers of detention might be exercised. I would remind noble Lords that we are talking here about Service detention, and not about imprisonment. And the difference is not one of mere terminology. Sentences of detention that might be awarded under Clause 5 of the Bill may be contrasted with the maximum sentence that a court-martial may impose for most Service offences under the Army and Air Force Acts: which is of two years' imprisonment. In this context the powers now proposed for commanding officers are not at all excessive; and, of course, the more serious instances will, in any case, always be tried by a court-martial.
The provisions in the Bill, and the safeguards that will be introduced in regulations and administrative instructions, were scrutinised very thoroughly by the Select Committee of another place. They concluded that:
"…it was right to make these changes "

877
I commend this view, on the merits of the case I have just outlined, to noble Lords. The Royal Navy is not affected by the proposals contained in this clause. The level of powers held by Naval commanding officers were accepted by the Select Committee of another place as being appropriate, and the Government are happy to accede to that Committee's suggestion that they be reviewed when Armed Forces Bills are presented to Parliament.
The proposals in the Bill that received the most extensive examination from the Select Committee —and quite rightly, since they are the most significant innovations in the Bill —are those that concern civilians, and particularly juveniles. I refer to Clauses 6 to 9 and their accompanying Schedules. As your Lordships may be aware, these civilians accompanying the Services overseas are already subject to the provisions of the Service Discipline Acts. They are liable to trial under those Acts by court-martial, and summarily by Naval commanding officers, or by appropriate superior authority in the Army and RAF. The penalties available at present under the Acts are limited to imprisonment or a fine, and in practice these have been found to be too inflexible, in particular when dealing with cases involving juveniles. It is therefore proposed to take a new range of powers to deal with civilians in general and juveniles in particular, modelled as far as possible on the corresponding provisions in English law. The powers, including their closeness to the comparable civilian power, are more fully set out in the Supplementary Memorandum M6 which is printed on pages 74–78 of the Select Committee Report.
These powers will be available to deal with civilians who are brought before courts-martial, but it is also proposed to establish a Standing Civilian Court which will be available to deal with precisely those cases for which present arrangements leave something to be desired. The new court, which will be set up at present only in Germany, will be akin to magistrates' courts in England and Wales. The civil departments concerned have been fully consulted over the proposals, both for the new powers and for the court, including the Lord Chancellor's Department as regards the appointment of magistrates
878
to the new Standing Civilian Court. All concur in them and the relevant German authorities see no objections to the Bill's proposals.
The "civilians" provisions of the Bill, so far as the Services are concerned, are innovatory. The parallel with corresponding United Kingdom arrangements is not precise, but it is as close as is possible at this stage; it was not felt desirable to embark immediately on the whole of the more complicated or specialised areas with which courts in this country may concern themselves. However, the workings both of the Standing Civilian Court and of the new awards will be kept under close review, and refinements which might be found desirable in the light of experience could be introduced in the next Armed Forces Bill. We are determined to remain flexible about their operation, just as the need for flexibility prompts their introduction now. The "civilians" proposals constitute a timely and valuable contribution to the way in which civilians accompanying the Services overseas are treated, and I commend them to the House.
My Lords, I could go on to discuss various of the Bill's other proposals: for example Clause 2, which will allow regulations to be made enabling a reduction in a Serviceman's term of service in cases where a man proves unsuitable for a particular trade, and it is desired to transfer him to another where the period of engagement is less; Clause 13 and Schedule 6, which provide for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, or Clause 16 and Schedule 8, which provide for the registration in certain civil courts of a financial penalty imposed under the Service Acts. All these, like the Bill's remaining provisions, are useful —and, I hope and believe, uncontroversial —measures. Your Lordships however will, I am certain, wish to examine the Bill in your own time, instead of listening to me describing it. You will be aware that all the provisions of the Bill have been carefully looked at by the Select Committee of another place. That Committee produced a most useful Report including the oral and written evidence taken. In it the Committee endorsed the general principles of the Bill, and made several recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt however

879
that your Lordships will wish to consider the Bill and its provisions with your customary care.
In the Government's view this Bill makes a valuable contribution to the working of the Service Discipline Acts, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (Lord Winterbottom.)

CABINET DOCUMENTS: UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE
3.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the disclosure of information in Cabinet papers to the author of the article in the magazine New Society about the child benefit scheme.
"I should first inform the House of the result of the investigation carried out by Sir Douglas Allen and will outline the further action that is being taken.
"Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry has been very thorough. It has included interviews with Ministers and with all Political Advisers who had access. All civil servants who had access, including those concerned solely with the custody and handling of the relevant material, have also been interviewed. Sir Douglas Allen has also followed up all the suggestions and leads put to him by those who have been interviewed and most of those that have appeared in the Press. He also interviewed Mr. Frank Field, the author of the article, who refused to disclose the source of his information.
"As I informed the House earlier, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the quotations in the New Society article. The manner of the disclosure is however more doubtful. Thus while some of the quotations are accurate, others contain minor textual errors. The article was also wrong in saying
880
that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on 4th May. Sir Douglas Allen considers that the likely explanation is that the author of the article did not possess a copy of the papers from which he quoted, but that someone who had access to them made extensive and possibly rapid notes from them which were subsequently handed over.
"Sir Douglas Allen concentrated his inquiry on those who had access to the Limited Circulation Annex recording the discussion which the Cabinet had on 6th May. This record falls into a category which is given a restricted circulation and very strict rules exist for their handling. Departments are not permitted to copy them, in whole or in part. They are not to be sent to individuals in a Department but must be read, on a strict "need to know" basis, only in the Private Office concerned. In the case of this particular Limited Circulation Annex 34 copies were issued and it was hoped that by concentrating the investigation on it the scope of the inquiry could be focused on a relatively few people. Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry revealed however that the strict procedures for handling this document were not fully observed by all Departments. Three Departments copied it and in others the original document was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. This failure to observe the rules regrettably made the task of identifying the sources of the disclosure more difficult by increasing the range of access and thus the number of people involved. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that this failure to observe the proper procedures was itself responsible for the disclosure.
"I have to inform the House that despite his very thorough inquiries Sir Douglas Allen has been unable to discover the source of this leak.
"The problem of leaks is by no means new and it would be misleading to pretend otherwise. They have taken place for many years. They are part of the enduring relationship between Governments and the Press in the course of which the interests of the two parties will sometimes be different. What was disturbing about the disclosure to the author of the New

881
Society article was that it involved the unauthorised passing over of extracts from the papers of the Cabinet itself, which the recipients had formally undertaken not to do. This is an abuse of trust which cannot be in the public interest ; and it is in a different order of gravity from some of the stories and allegations which have been made about the disclosure of some relatively innocuous documents.
"The House will recall that I invited whoever was responsible to come forward to say so. He or she has not done this, with the result that this leaves a large number of persons under suspicion, including one or two whose names have been published in the Press without supporting evidence. I regret this very much.
"The following further action is therefore being taken.
"First, one or two matters came to Sir Douglas Allen's attention which could not be wholly explained. I have therefore decided after consultation with the Attorney-General to invite the police to carry out an investigation into these matters and into any other material in Sir Douglas Allen's report which may appear to them to justify further probing.
"This investigation will be directed towards discovering who was responsible for the disclosure. I informed the Attorney-General of this decision and he has considered the matter. He informs me that he has had regard to all the relevant factors, including Mr. Field's voluntary admission, and he authorises me to say that he is informing Mr. Field that he will not be prosecuted in respect of any offence under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this matter. He is giving the same undertaking to those concerned with the publication of the article in New Society.
"Secondly, there is the matter of the procedures for handling Cabinet documents. As an immediate measure I am issuing fresh directions that the existing rules are to be scrupulously observed. I think however that the rules themselves should be examined by a small Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Houghton of Sowerby has agreed to be chairman of this body
882
and that the other members will be my right honourable friend the Member for Kilmarnock and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Grantham.
"Finally, this episode has raised once again the question whether the present definition and classification of official secrets and the arrangements for their protection are right. This is ground that has already been covered by the Franks Report which the Government have been considering. The Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible for reforming the Official Secrets Act in a way which will make its coverage both more limited and more effective.
"The House will be informed of the result of these further steps."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made in another place. In the course of two weeks, Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry appears to have discovered certain breaches of the rules but has thrown no light on how in this case extracts from recent Cabinet documents were published. This situation must remain most unsatisfactory, since information in this category could have been on confidential defence or other matters involving national security.
We think it right that the police should be asked to come in and carry out investigations; and indeed we suggested this two weeks ago from this Bench. It is very distirbing that three Departments should have transgressed against the rules regarding the copying of Cabinet documents. It is surely right that the proposed Committee of Privy Counsellors should examine the present rules, and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is to be in the chair. Presumably they will make recommendations about these rules, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could tell us whether it is proposed that a report from them should be published or given in your Lordships' House.
There are clearly differences of view of what subjects should be strictly confidential, concerning not only Cabinet papers but other documents. The noble

883
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has repeated the Statement which, towards the end of it, states that the whole question of the Official Secrets Act will he considered. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us when this is likely to be ? I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Parliamentary programme is somewhat congested. For the moment, while the rules exist, and unless or until they are authoritatively changed, they must surely be observed: and if the present system of free and frank discussion within the Cabinet is to continue, then Cabinet documents must be safely protected.
The next stage appears to be this police investigation, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell us when we might expect a further report —if necessary an interim one —in respect of the police inquiry and whether this will be before the Summer Recess.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not least, as the Prime Minister has said, because of the suspicion which still hangs over a number of people, most of whom are undoubtedly innocent.
We welcome the setting up of a committee of Privy Counsellors to examine the rules, and I hope that the principle will be accepted, so far as the review of the Official Secrets Act is concerned, that the fewer documents that are classified, the better. But, once they are classified, no-one should be allowed to use his discretion about whether or not confidentiality is to be maintained. I believe this is the kernal of the matter. This is not open Government, to leak Cabinet secrets: it is anarchy.
3.57 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I must put one question to him. Obviously as the noble, Lord, Lord Byers, has just said, a number of people, most of whom are wholly innocent of any breach of trust, are put under suspicion. What I want to put to the noble and learned Lord is this: There are three categories of person who
884
will have had access to these documents. One covers members of the Cabinet; one covers their political advisers and one covers career civil servants. Will the terms of reference of the Committee of Privy Counsellors entitle them to investigate the whole policy regarding the employment of political advisers with access to secret documents, since these people are bound neither by the career obligations of the civil servants nor by the oath of the Privy Counsellors?
3.58 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand the practice is for me to reply to Front-Bench questions before dealing with anything else, even when there are two questions from a single Front-Bench. I am grateful for the general response of noble Lords to the Statement that has been made in underlining the crucial importance of maintaining security, secrecy and protection of Cabinet documents. Government would be intolerable if that became an open sieve. The date of publication of the report of the Privy Counsellors' committee will depend on when their inquiry is completed. I think they will be conscious of the sense of importance and urgency attached to the matter. I doubt very much, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, whether the point that he raised would reasonably come within the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry; but no doubt that is a matter we can look into when the precise terms of reference are determined.
The reform of the Official Secrets Act, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement, has been under the consideration of the Government since the Franks Committee reported. All I can say at this stage is to repeat what he has said already: that the Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible. Part of this consideration, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will be a review of the classification of documents because over-classification merely weakens the shield of security, and the criminal law should be directed to the areas where the protection of the public interest is most required.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether and when an interim

885
report would be published by the police. That is certainly a suggestion that will be considered. As noble Lords have said, as the reputation of a large number of people are to some extent at stake —in the sense that all who have had connection with this matter may be deemed to be under suspicion —it is important that there should be speedy consideration of this matter. But if the interim report seems helpful and in the public interest, that will be forthcoming.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question? In the course of his Statement he referred to Mr. Field, who was involved either by writing about this classified document or by providing the information. But he also mentioned that the Attorney-General, after consultation — I am open to correction — had decided to inform Mr. Field that he would not be prosecuted. I seem to have a recollection of a case several years ago when a matter arising out of the Official Secrets Act was under review, and the person who refused to disclose information was prosecuted. Can we be told the reason why Mr. Field is to be immune if it is discovered — as, apparently, it has already been — that he was involved by providing the information?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Mr. Field has, of course, frankly admitted that he was the author of the article and it may well be that that was one of the factors which my honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General had in mind. It is his decision that there should be a grant of immunity from prosecution. No other Minister has made that decision and I cannot probe it further, except that, presumably, he came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute and I assume that that is why his decision was made. But I cannot take that matter further. It is strictly a matter within the responsibility of the Attorney-General.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask this further question? Could this not be a matter of Privilege brought before the Speaker of another place, and action taken accordingly?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question of breach of Parliamentary Privilege is an entirely different matter. This has been considered within the context of the Official Secrets Act, and in so far as it raised a matter of Parliamentary Privilege it would be the Privilege of another place and not of your Lordships' House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take it into account —and, certainly, my noble friend Lord Shinwell will —that this decision which he has announced, and which he says he cannot probe, raises uncomfortable memories of the Campbell case long years ago? It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot probe it further, but will he take it that some of us who are getting on in our years remember the sad outcome of the intervention of, I think, Sir Patrick Hastings who decided that somebody should be immune from prosecution? I share my noble friend's concern about anybody being given a guarantee that he is immune from prosecution, having admitted that he had received papers which he should not have received from a source which he refused to reveal. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor please to convey to his colleagues that this disturbs many of us, who feel that proper behaviour in public by those officers of the Cabinet responsible for the enforcement of the law is essential for the maintenance of a democracy.
May I now ask a second question which bothers me also? I could not understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed so out of hand the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because I simply cannot think other than that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button. Civil servants are one thing, and, in my day, if one took personal assistants or advisers into the office it was required that they should be admitted to the Service. This happened to me both in the Home Service and in the Foreign Service. If the Service would not admit them, then one did not have them. We now have —if your Lordships will forgive me —a bastard system under which Ministers have advisers who are not admitted to the Service, who see all the papers and who do not owe any

887
allegiance anywhere, except to those to whom they feel themselves tied. I happen to feel that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button of something that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, should in fact be going into.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the latter point which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has raised, of course political advisers are as much subject to the Official Secrets Act as anyone else who has access to Cabinet and secret documents, and are similarly bound by all the sanctions of the law in regard to them. The other matter which the noble Lord raised is something with which, if I may say so, I had reasonable familiarity in my six years as Attorney-General. One has, of course, to be scrupulously careful in Government that no pressure is brought to bear upon the Attorney-General in the making of his decisions. If my memory serves me right what was complained of or alleged, which would be a more accurate word to describe what happened, was that Sir Patrick Hastings, as Attorney-General, having decided to launch a prosecution was made subject to Cabinet pressure and a Cabinet decision to withdraw the prosecution. That, at any rate, is what was alleged and, of course, it lost the then Labour Government a General Election. I am not going into the historical merits and whether that brief synopsis accurately describes what took place, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that there has been no pressure, no interference with the Attorney-General, in this decision. The basic principle that all Attorney-Generals have applied —certainly, within my recollection and knowledge of them — is whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, and I have little doubt that in this case the present Attorney-General has come to the conclusion that it would not be.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I think he has put his finger right on the essential point of comparison between this case and the Campbell case? At the time of the Campbell case in 1924, I was in close association with Sir Patrick Hastings and with the Prime Minister of that day in a journalistic and Party-journalistic capacity. It is my recollection that the wheels of prosecution had
888
been starting to revolve, and the Attorney-General then cancelled and stopped the whole proceedings, which is quite a different matter from deciding in advance not to take proceedings.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are precedents for the grant of immunity, and my last and most immediate recollection of the grant of immunity from prosecution, which is often done to facilitate inquiries, was during the term of Office of the last Conservative Administration, when it was decided in relation to the inquiry into the Vehicle and General Insurance Company to grant immunity from prosecution to the person responsible for the leakage of information from the Department of Trade and Industry. There, I have no doubt activated by the same principle of the public interest, the Conservative Attorney-General decided to grant immunity.
Lord HALE: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, in response to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there would be an opportunity of discussing the terms of reference of the inquiry, and of the conditions under which it operates, in a debate in this House? Also, may I say in a single sentence that the noble Lord who spoke last was quite correct, and in the Campbell case there was a prosecution which was withdrawn. It was unfortunate that the gifted advocate who was then Attorney-General had little political experience and gave all the wrong reasons for his action.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not going to pursue further an inquest into the misfortunes of Sir Patrick Hastings, but may I point out to my noble friend Lord Hale that I did not say I was proposing that we should have a debate on the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry. There will be discussions between the Government and the members of the committee as to the most convenient and appropriate range of their inquiry which, as I have said, will be directed to examining the existing rules relating to the handling of Cabinet documents. Frankly, this does not seem to me to call for a wide-ranging debate. That is the purpose of the inquiry and it is a useful purpose, and I have little doubt that those who are charged with conducting the inquiry will do their job effectively.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I not press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about this matter? This leak was of a size which the Statement virtually admits was of unprecedented gravity, although previous leaks have occurred. Admittedly not only political advisers but everybody else is bound by the terms of the Official Secrets Act. Here, though, we have a novel situation of great gravity. The new factor which has been introduced into public security by the present Government is the appointment of political advisers. Will not the noble and learned Lord seriously bring it to the attention of his colleagues that if the inquiry by Privy Counsellors does not include this new factor within its terms of reference, in the eyes of the public, their efforts will be entirely valueless?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I greatly doubt that mournful conclusion which the noble and learned Lord has reached and I am not quite sure that the slight implication, that guilt points necessarily towards political advisers in this matter, is wholly justified. Perhaps that implication was not intended. However, it is very important that the further inquiry into the matter by the police should not be trammelled by previous unfounded suspicion without full examination of the facts. I agree, of course, that there is room for discussion as to the role of political advisers in Government. It would be an interesting and important subject for debate and if the usual channels can arrange it and it is thought to be appropriate, no doubt a debate can be held. However, the remit of the Committee of Privy Counsellors will be the practical one of protecting, by appropriate rules, the handling, and the procedures for handling Cabinet documents.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, first may I disclaim any connection with the Campbell case! We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having dealt with a wide range of questions, but I think that he misunderstood my first question about the Committee of Privy Counsellors. I did not ask about the timing of the inquiry: I asked whether it is intended that its report should be made public.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question. It depends upon what is contained in the report and on the degree of confidentiality that will be involved. As there will he a recommendation about an improvement in procedures, prima facie it may well be that it will be thought right to publish the report. However, as the whole object of the exercise is to increase the security of Cabinet documents it might be very inexpedient indeed to give publicity to the methods of protecting that security. Therefore I will preserve what I am pleased to call an open mind on this matter. At any rate, I can assure noble Lords that it is not a closed book.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I hope that there will be no leak during the course of the inquiry. We have been dealing with this Statement for 30 minutes, so perhaps it is now time to move on.

ARMED FORCES BILL
4.14 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, if we may return to the more mundane world of the Armed Forces — that is, discipline in the Armed Forces as opposed to what may well turn out to be Cabinet discipline — earlier this afternoon we heard the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, explain this Bill to us in very full terms. The Bill appears to be somewhat complicated at first sight. However, we believe that its intentions and, indeed, its provisions are straightforward. Noble Lords will agree that by the nature of their work and duties defence forces are often compelled to lead a very different life from those of us who are civilians. Thus the House will not be surprised to find that to a great extent the Bill concerns itself with the problems of Service discipline and, just as importantly, with Standing Civilian Courts and with juveniles who, for one of any number of valid reasons, must be dealt with abroad.
As we have already heard, the Act begins by continuing the various Acts which are concerned with discipline in the Armed Forces, and we are glad to know that the position of the Royal Marines

891
has been clarified in one or two aspects. However, to many of us the provisions of Clause 5 are the most important: those relating to the trial and punishment of airmen or private soldiers. We understand that such alteration as is made in military disciplinary procedures meets with the general approval of the Armed Forces. Until now a commanding officer has been able to award a maximum of 28 days' detention for any military offence. The raising of this limit to 60 days may appear to be a trifle harsh but we have to remember that Service life is totally different in character from civilian life, both as to the manner of interdependence and as part of a separate community. It is not that Service personnel have become more prone to crime or, indeed, to error. It is merely that commanding officers should have more power as well as, we hope, more discretion over various offences which are committed by airmen or private soldiers who are under their command.
We believe that such a change would be welcomed by all concerned, since one of the consequences, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be to reduce the numbers of courts-martial. Hitherto any offence punishable by a term of more than 28 days' detention had to be dealt with by a court-martial, with all the delay, complication and trouble that that involved; and there was always the possibility that where a more serious offence was alleged to have been committed the punishment would be more serious than if such an offence had been summarily heard and the case concluded by the commanding officer.
There are risks for the private soldier, but he will continue to have the option of trial by court-martial if he so wishes. Under this Bill he will have the option to be tried summarily by his commanding officer. In my opinion, the commanding officer will know the private soldier and the relevant facts of the case much better than any court-martial. We believe, and many of our colleagues in another place also believe, that such a procedure is a great improvement upon the present procedure. Certainly none of us considers that there should be one set of laws or procedures, or even a concept of law, for Service personnel and another for the rest of us in
892
civilian life. But where offences are of a military nature, surely it is right for them to be taken summarily.
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with what many of us consider to be another important development. These are Standing Civilian Courts. Much of what has been said on Clause 5 applies to a great extent also to Clause 6. There are more anomalies where civilians are concerned, especially where civilians are working with the Armed Forces abroad. In many cases the proposals contained in the Bill are sound, but should any of these proposals prove to be unworkable both this House and the other place will have the opportunity to change such courts and their procedures.
Clause 10 of the Bill deals with juveniles who may commit offences while overseas. Many of us will recognise that the various manifestations of youthful unrest in this country must to some extent spread among the children and dependants of our Servicemen abroad. It is gratifying that domestic problems among our Armed Forces personnel are so rare, in view of the terrible strain that their military duties, particularly so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, imposes on all ranks and, indeed, on their family and domestic life. Where any domestic problems are apparent, it is gratifying to know that the Bill devotes so much trouble in its provisions to ensuring the same treatment of young offenders as would be applicable within the United Kingdom. I believe there is, and indeed there will be, a great deal of morale boosting where Servicemen can know that should any problem occur in their domestic life when they are away on duty, wherever they may be, everything can he done that would be done if they were in the United Kingdom.
There is one small point that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may be able to explain to us now, or perhaps at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. It is a small military detail and it occurs in Clause 12, concerning the taking of the oath by shorthand writers. It seems to many of us that such personnel at courts-martial should be bound by the usual rules of confidentiality and possibly of security and secrecy, and we would be most grateful to have the noble Lord's comments as to why it is planned

893
to dispense with this procedure. It is a minor point, but we consider it relevant and we hope the noble Lord can help us with it.
In general, the Bill is concerned with tidying up various administrative problems and details. It seeks to bring aspects of Service life into line with those aspects of civilian life. We are encouraged by the general welcome that the Bill has received from the various sections of the Armed Forces. There is of course one section of the Armed Forces of which my noble colleague Lady Vickers has a very specialised knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned earlier; namely, the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. It is gratifying to know that various provisions are applicable to these two valuable Services to bring them into line with Service life and discipline generally.
The Bill could be said to comprise a very weird amalgam of legal procedure, child care and welfare, of course not forgetting aspects of Service discipline which are quite separate from the way in which we order our lives as civilians. As noble Lords will know, our Armed Forces are all highly motivated and very dedicated, and we believe they are most effective. This Bill adjusts some aspects of their life and, we hope, in the way in which they would wish their lives to be improved. For this reason we welcome the Bill and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for explaining it and its rather complicated provisions.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the points he has raised and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for putting so clearly before us a rather complicated Bill. I should like to start by reminding the House of the magnificent work done by Her Majesty's Services since the last war. After all, we have not had a major war for many years and one rather forgets the part taken by the Services between 1945 and 1946 in Indonesia — then known as the "Forgotten Army "— and in Malaysia; in action against the Mau-Mau in Kenya; in Aden, Sarawak and Sabah. I venture to say that they served with magnificent
894
success in all these spheres. Then we had the "Cod War " and Ulster. I should like to place on record my belief that the Services have done a wonderful job in any country in which they have served. In my opinion we have the best Armed Forces in the world and I should like to have the assurance that we are going to keep them so.
At the present time recruiting is very good and therefore I should like to turn to the Select Committee and their remarks of 3rd March, 1976. As I understand it, they accepted all seven recommendations of the Select Committee set up in 1971. In particular, I should like to deal now with the question of Clause 4 and Schedule 2 which make the WRNS and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service subject to naval discipline. Whether or not this is wise, whether or not it is progress, I am not at all certain. It may help the WRNS in future to go to sea if they wish to, and should it be deemed necessary they could become combatant. These are the only two advantages I can see.
I am not at all certain why the nursing service should have military discipline. It makes a complete difference from what has happened in their past service life and they will now be under the Naval Discipline Act. Perhaps I might recall the excellent service they have given previously. The service was originally started by Dame Katherine Furse in 1917 and in 1919 it was disbanded and then there was the voluntary association of the WRNS. Dame Vera LaughtonMatthews founded the present Service in 1939 and the WRNS were the first women to be sent overseas; and regrettably in SS "Acquilla" they were torpedoed and all — I think about 35 of them — were drowned. Since that time the WRNS have served in their present capacity all over the world. At the present time there are Leading WRNS serving in ten different countries including, for example, Peking, New Delhi, Hong Kong and in Malta, where regrettably — and I am sure they regret it too — they will soon be leaving. They are also, of course, in Gibraltar and they have exchanged drafts in Holland, Canada, the United States of America and also NATO, SHAPE and MONS.
Recruiting is excellent and advertising for the WRNS is not necessary. As I understand it, it is the job that matters,

895
and nothing else. Therefore it is rather difficult to understand why there has to be this change. I realise that there has been considerable discussion and debate about this and one has read the Report of the Select Committee of 10th March — and may I here pay a tribute to the excellent way in which the Select Committee did their work; I have read all the documents and they really went into all the matters in great detail. On page 33, speaking of the WRNS and the nurses, the Report states:
"It is judged that their being made fully subject to the Naval Discipline Act will be seen to have little significant practical effect on the day-to-day life of the Service."
I hope that will be so; otherwise I think it is a great pity to make the change.
During the period when I was in the other place I took the opportunity of visiting the Services overseas, of course including a special interest in the WRNS. I have seen them in action in Britain and overseas and I have visited their headquarters at HMS "Dauntless" near Reading. When I read the Bill I realised that there was going to be a major change. I made several inquiries as to what was going to happen in the future in regard to their training. I believe noble Lords may know that it was suggested some time ago that their headquarters should be at HMS " Dryad ", but I gather that this is now not possible, and to my regret I understand, having recently been down to the West Country, that HMS "Raleigh" is being considered. I do not know whether the noble Lord has visited this establishment but is is very cut off, being right down in Cornwall. One has to go to Plymouth and then cross by the ferry in order to get there, and I consider that it is not at all a suitable place for new recruits. Surely it would be possible to leave them, perhaps on a smaller establishment, at HMS "Dauntless" or attach them to HMS "Mercury" where they would be really in a naval atmosphere. I understand that HMS "Dryad" will not be ready for some considerable time, if ever.
Another reason why I am rather worried about this change is that there are of course male cadets training at HMS "Raleigh" and I do not think it is considered fair to train the young boys and the young girls there at the same time. I am not being rude to the young boys,
896
but I understand that they are, on the whole, younger than the girls and the girls are, as a whole, brighter. Another point is that the WRNS are not kitted out for the first few weeks, so if they cannot remain at HMS "Dauntless", where I would prefer them to be, they might go to the Portsmouth area.
The noble Lord spoke about their future. If this change is going to be made, I hope that either he or the Minister will understand that what I have been advocating for some time is the enlargement of their grades of work. For example, they have been promised for some time that they can learn to fly helicopters, and the fact that they will serve on the hydro-graphic survey ships was also pointed out. The reason for this type of work being particularly suitable for these women is that they do not mind going on long trips overseas, whereas married men are not so keen to go on so many long trips. As I understand it, there is a long waiting list to join the WRNS. The standard is very high; many of them have "0" and "A" levels and are university graduates. I should like the noble Lord the Minister to consider enlarging the intake. I do not want him to reply that this will be more expensive and that I am asking for extra money, because if the intake is not enlarged many of these people will be unemployed and will have to be paid unemployment compensation. The reason for my suggestion is that when the economic situation improves there are likely to be fewer men entering the Services, and more women will be needed. There will be fewer men because a great many men get married at an early age and their wives are not keen for their husbands to go overseas for a long period.
My Lords, like my noble friend, I have read the various clauses, and I would mention Clause 5. I should like to know why at least 28 days detention must be given, as I understood it when I read this clause. So far as one can see, it is not economical to have a period of less than 28 days. To a certain extent, I agree that courts-martial should be done away with, and the officers given more powers. But I was glad to hear the noble Lord say, as I understood him, that there can be an appeal to a court-martial should they wish, because one

897
sometimes gets incompatibility of temperament. This would be the better way of dealing with it.
If the officers are going into detention I should like to know whether it is intended that WRNS should also go into detention now that they come under the Naval Discipline Act. If they are, what is the position now at Portsmouth and Colchester for these men, because when on previous occasions I visited Colchester, I was not at all impressed. One must not over-exaggerate the question of discipline. Looking at the figures, I was impressed by the small percentage of the Services needing discipline.
My Lords, with regard to the increased powers of the officers, are they to get any legal advice? It seems to me that many of them may need this, and it would be very helpful to them. I was rather worried about the reply given by the Minister in the other place that further magistrates are needed for these other civilians, particularly overseas. The Minister said that he thought the best types of magistrate would he headmasters or social workers who serve in the community areas. I do not think it is desirable to concentrate on appointing headmasters and social workers as magistrates. First of all, headmasters have ideas of their own with regard to discipline, and social workers are overworked. It would be much better to recruit as magistrates the ordinary person with common sense.
With regard to legal aid, I notice that it was said in the other place by the Minister that he hoped that the Bar and the Law Society would continue a very proud tradition of affording representation for all who need it. What is going to happen with regard to legal aid?
I was pleased to see in the previous clause that the deductions for the maintenance of children was to go up from 16 years to 17 years. When these maintenance orders are made while the men are in the Services, this works very well indeed, but I am wondering what happens when the men leave the Services. Are the firms or the work places to which they go to be informed? — because very often there is a large gap. While a man is in the Services, the wives and children get the maintenance quite regularly, but when he leaves the Services they then find themselves entirely cut off and often have to try to find the man.
898
My Lords, as appears from Clause 19, I do not understand why penal deductions under the Air Force Act 1955 can be taken from the pensions in respect of offences which have been committed. Does this also concern the other Services? As I read it, it would appear that it is only to those in the RAF that this applies. I should like to know whether when any penal offence has been committed the deduction is to be made from the pensions or from their pay.
May I ask about Clause 21, with regard to the Greenwich Hospital pensions. During my time in the other place, I often made applications on behalf of widows to the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund. Some were fortunate to receive help, but some were not. Is the pensions fund in such a state that it can help necessitous widows? On the question of penalties, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how many people, if any, have received the death penalty since 1900, or to the nearest date that he can give us? Now that they come under the Naval Discipline Act, is the death penalty to apply to women? Various penalties are laid out, but it does not state clearly how they are to be exercised.
My Lords, with these remarks, I hope that I have welcomed the Bill. I am not entirely certain whether it is wise for these two Services, which have worked so well together in the past, to change their orientation, but I wish them luck in the future. If it does not work and there is need to take further action, I hope the Minister will see that this is done.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, put his name on the list and proposed to speak. I would not wish to offer any opposition to him if he is present.
4.38 p.m.
Lord NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I should declare an interest in this Bill. I have been interested in about 300 courts-martial, as defending officer, prosecuting officer, as a member of the court, and as the president. I was also once very personally interested in a court-martial when I lost a pistol after dinner while on active service in Cyprus. Be that as it

899
may, I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on the Bill, because it is set out in such a way that any serving officer can understand it easily and readily. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the help he gave me before this debate.
My Lords, there is one matter in Clause 5 to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, in fact underlining what has been said by previous speakers; that is, the increase of powers of punishment by a commanding officer from 28 days to 60 days. This will be welcomed by many people, certainly most of all by the soldier. Nobody likes courts-martial if they can be avoided, and very few courts-martial give less than 60 days. Most give probably 100 days or more, and if a commanding officer, instead of court-martialling a man, gives him 50, 40 or 60 days, the soldier will benefit by this. The magistrates in this country will benefit because they will not try cases of minor disturbances and breaches of the peace; they will merely hand them over to the military to deal with. As your Lordships know, civil courts always have the first bite of the cherry, but they can waive that right and let the military deal with a case. This I think they probably will do. It will also mean far fewer courts-martial, which will be a very great saving to the taxpayer.
I have two more points to make, one concerning the Army Act, Section 198, and the other privileges of the defending officer or soldier's friend. I should like first of all to deal with Section 198. This says:
"A record made in any service book or other document prescribed by Queen's Regulations for the purposes of this subsection, being a record made in pursuance of any Act or of Queen's Regulations, or otherwise in pursuance of military duty, and purporting to be signed by the commanding officer or by any person whose duty it was to make the record, shall be evidence of the facts stated therein ".
This simply means that any commanding officer can publish a Part I or Part II Order, have it duly signed, and it is admissible as evidence in a court-martial and is evidence of the facts stated in it.
This is a licence to print a conviction. It cuts across the principle of best evidence. Whenever you get a case which can be proved by various forms of
900
evidence, be it written, oral, or copy of whatever it may be, or a document, the general rule is that you must call the best evidence. Obviously the Army must be able to call as evidence in courts-martial certain documents, but I do not think that they should be able to produce as evidence documents which relate to happenings outside a barracks. For example, the most common case brought before a court-martial is that of absence. In order to prove absence you have to prove two things, the commencement and the termination. The commencement is easy. You call the orderly corporal who was on duty and who called the roll on the day in question. His evidence is, "I called the roll, the accused was not present in the barracks. I searched the barracks, and submitted the necessary report." There you have the commencement of absence. Then you have to prove the termination. Frequently, the soldier was either arrested by a policeman or surrendered to a policeman. Theoretically you should call the policeman to say, "Yes, I arrested the man," or, " he surrendered to me," and you have the termination of absence. You then have the commencement and the termination; you have proved your case and that is it.
But, instead of a policeman being called, the Army allows an Army Form 1617 or 1618, according to whether the accused was arrested or surrendered himself, to be produced in evidence. Frequently this document is incorrectly filled in by the chief officer of police in charge of the police station. How or why is immaterial, but often it is incorrectly filled in. Then the commanding officer forwards the Army Form 1617 or 1618 to the Director of Army Legal Services, who says, "This document is not admissible as evidence. What you must do is copy it out in the form of a Part II Order, sign it, and that will make it admissible". It is the adjutant who does that, as the person responsible for making the record. What happens is that he scratches out "1617" or "1618" on the top of the paper, substitutes "Part H Order ", and that makes it admissible. In my opinion, that is not justice. If the policeman makes a nonsense of the 1617 or 1618 or anything else like that then he should be called.
On two occasions I have had this situation occur when I have been prosecuting. On one occasion I won because

901
the permanent president said that the Part II Order was admissible. On another occasion when I was prosecuting the permanent president said it was not admissible and the man was found not guilty. I have defended three times when this situation arose. I won twice; in other words, on two occasions the president said : " This Part II Order is not admissible. It is a copy of an inadmissible document and therefore it is not admissible ". On one occasion I lost; so I do not know what to think. I cannot tell your Lordships what the law is, because it has happened to me both ways. I think myself that the Part II Order is inadmissible. I think it is wrong in law to argue that it should be admissible because 99·9 times out of 100 the man is guilty and therefore what does it matter whether the document is admissible or not ; he is guilty, so it gets it over with quickly. That really is not British justice. I think there should be a tightening of that rule.
In courts-martial you get various officers who prosecute and others who defend. I defended in very many and I prosecuted in very many, and I would not accept any Part II Order which was a copy of an inadmissible document. But if the soldier is unfortunate enough to be defended by his second lieutenant, who has been in the Army only a week or two, he will simply accept it and it will go through. Whether the man is guilty or not is no concern of the defending officer. His job is to put his case forward as best he can. If he comes to the conclusion that the man is not guilty in law, then he does not see him. He simply says "You are not guilty in law on the evidence which is in the summary or abstract of evidence. My advice to you is to plead not guilty. Go into court, plead not guilty, sit down and leave the rest to me ". Very often you get him off. That is British law. Anyhow, I leave that to your Lordships.
I should like now to turn to Chapter V of the Manual of Military Law which concerns privilege of a legal adviser. Lord Birkenhead said:
"First, the so-called privilege attaching to the relation of a legal adviser or an advocate is a privilege which is the client's privilege, conferred, not for the benefit of the legal person involved, but for the general advantage of the community,"
—including soldiers—
"upon the ground that, unless a relation of absolute confidence can be established between
902
the lay client and his professional adviser, in practice the ends of justice cannot be attained.… Second, that privilege only concerns communications which arise in connection with legal proceedings whether actual or contemplated…".
That means that a soldier's friend does not have to defend at a court-martial, because it may not come to that; but he may be asked to give advice if a court-martial may be a possibility. The passage continues:
"…or which pass as professional communications in a professional capacity. And thirdly, it should be observed that though it attaches in some degree to persons who, not being barristers or solicitors, in fact advise lay clients in litigious matters—such persons, for example, as expert witnesses ".
—and I would say soldiers' friends as well—
"it is for the most part in its actual operation confined to persons who stand in a peculiar relation to the courts of justice ".
A soldier's friend or a defending officer stands in a peculiar relation to the courts of justice, he stands in a particular relation to courts-martial.
I should like to read to your Lordships a further quite short paragraph. It concerns the description, and it says:
"A legal adviser is not permitted, whether during or after the termination of his employment as such, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, during the course of and for the purpose of his employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client during, in the course of, and for the purpose of, such employment ".
In other words, what he says to his client is privileged. It continues:
"Similarly, an accused cannot be compelled to disclose communications which he has made to his legal advisers for the purpose of preparing his defence."
There is a note in the Manual of Military Law which describes a legal adviser. It says:
" 'Legal adviser' includes barrister, and solicitor, their clerks and interpreters between them and their clients. Justice would seem to require that this expression should also include ' defending officer ', but this is questionable ".
I should like to quote to your Lordships one case which happened in my experience. In the Household Cavalry we have various objects, some of which are very valuable. One is a picture. This picture appeared for sale in an art gallery in Jermyn Street. An ex-officer of the Household Cavalry went in and asked the price of it, and to whom it belonged. He then rang up the colonel commanding the Household Cavalry and said, "Do you realise that

903
our picture is for sale in a gallery in Jermyn Street? " The reply was, "No, I did not. I am coming round ". Having done this, he took the picture away and legal proceedings were duly instigated against an officer.
Before the proceedings were instigated the officer came to see me and said, "I want your advice ". Having a very good idea what it was about I said to him, "You want my advice, but is it possible that legal proceedings may be taken against you either in a court-martial or in a civil court? "He said Yes ". I said, " I can only give you advice if you will employ me as your soldier's friend or defending officer, and I want you to sign a piece of paper to that effect, which he did.
Having listened to his story I then decided that this was outside my ken and ability, and handed him on to an eminent firm of solicitors in London, thus making me someone who has briefed a firm of solicitors, and a client. He was not court-martialed but prosecuted in a civil court. When I handed him over and briefed the solicitors my duties ended, but I considered that what he had said to me, and what I had said to him, was privileged. A colonel in the Household Cavalry did not consider this to be so and asked me what I had said to the officer and what he had said to me, and what I had said to his firm of solicitors. I refused to answer this question. The discussion became heated, and I said that I would have to put the matter in the hands of the police if he pressed me any further. I also said I would have to inform the solicitors of the conversation. The matter then ended.
Quite obviously in my opinion—I leave it to your Lordships—
" Justice would seem to require that this expression should also include defending officer ', but this is questionable "
is not questionable. There is no question about it. I think I was right in refusing to answer those questions.
The Naval Discipline Act says:
" 'Legal adviser' includes barrister, solicitor, and soldier's friend."
That covers it. I think that in this Bill we should say:
" Justice would require that the legal adviser should be barrister, solicitor and soldier's friend."
904
Obviously I was placed in an impossible position, but I could fight it because I had had great experience. However, suppose this was a young officer who was inexperienced. He might well have told his commanding officer what was said to him in confidence by what was virtually his client, and justice would have been prejudiced as a result.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat appeared at first to be reluctant to address your Lordships' House, but having done so he has disclosed considerable knowledge of the legalistic side of Army affairs, and I congratulate him on his vast knowledge of that subject. It would have been a pity to have missed his speech. My only regret is that my noble friend Lord Wigg is not present, because if there is anybody in your Lordships' House, or in any other House, who knows more about the Army Act, and the disciplinary aspects of the Army Act than my noble friend Lord Wigg, I should like to meet him. Well, I should not mind meeting him but I would not care to listen to him, because I recall those frequent debates we had in another place many years ago on an Act similar to the one under review.
Significantly, Members of your Lordships' House may note that unless we pass this Bill and it becomes an Act the standing Army will disappear. It is as important as that. Perhaps there might have been a larger attendance if Members of your Lordships' House had been aware of that. In the old days in another place there was considerable controversy about courts-martial and about discipline. Indeed it was always regarded as an opportunity for a Second Reading debate on the Army. Indeed, there were some who wanted to abolish the Army altogether. That attitude now seems to have disappeared. Even in another place the Select Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred, never thought of anything controversial like that. It is all gone.
This might be an opportunity, though so far no Member of your Lordships' House has ventured to undertake the task, although I am sure that it is just

905
an oversight, of expressing our appreciation of the services rendered by members of Her Majesty's Forces, whether in the Army, Air Force, Navy, or the civilians associated with our Forces. They are a very fine body of people, both men and women. Of course, there are bound to he some black sheep among them. You have black sheep in all walks of society, except, of course, in your Lordships' House—I would never dare to say that. But generally speaking the members of Her Majesty's Forces are people capable of understanding discipline when it is required, and rendering service when it is called upon. I am sure that I express an opinion shared by every Member of your Lordships' House that we are very glad to extend to them our thanks for services rendered.
I know that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom is straining at the leash to reply to the innumerable questions addressed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who is also an authority on this subject, and much more of an authority than I can ever hope to be. I also notice the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, waiting to address your Lordships' House on a matter which is no doubt just as important—something connected with the EEC—so I shall be very brief indeed.
I did not add my name to the list of speakers because I thought that this was the sort of Bill we had passed on innumerable occasions in another place and in this House and did not require amendment. I therefore decided not to bother about it; that is, until I read it—perhaps I should have read it earlier—and, having read it, I thought that I might make a few observations.
To begin with, I cannot understand—no doubt there is a valid reason and my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will give it—the reason for the increase from 28 days to 60 days for any crime committed by a member of Her Majesty's Forces. Am I right in believing that its increase is designed to reduce the number of courts-martial ? If so, that is a desirable aim, because courts-martial can be horrible things. I learnt a lot about them when I was at the War Office and Ministry of Defence and often I had to occupy a position in those Departments to intervene and express an opinion—a political opinion of course—when that
906
was regarded as necessary. Has crime increased in Her Majesty's Forces over the years necessitating this increase, or is it simply to reduce the number of courts-martial?
I should have thought that the amount of crime in the Forces had decreased, because members of the Forces now have a worthwhile career, are better paid than they were in the past, which is a most desirable change, and there are opportunities at the end of one's service; the authorities concerned do everything possible to help in that respect. It is inevitable, too, with the passage of time that they are better educated than were the kind of recruits who entered the Services when I was young. My question is simply why it has been found necessary to impose more harsh discipline. I can only think that it is designed to reduce the number of courts-martial.
The only other point I wish to raise concerns the decision to bring women members of the Royal Navy into line with other members of the Forces. This controversy goes back a long way. I recall that when I was Minister of Defence we discussed in the Defence Committee, or it may have been the Defence Council, the question of the status of women members of the Forces, and I learned then that women members of the Army were Regulars in the sense that they were fully integrated into the Army, as were women members of the RAF, but the WRENS were auxilliaries and not officially integrated into the Service. Sir Charles Power was the First Sea Lord and he sat opposite me along with other high-ranking members of what was then His Majesty's Forces. I learned only afterwards that he was about to marry a WREN. I made a faux pas which has embarrassed me since. I asked him " Why don't you make honest women of them? " Of course there was nothing immoral in my mind, no question of immorality; I simply thought that they should be integrated along with the others. I was always sorry for what I said, but Sir Charles took it very well indeed. Now that women have achieved complete liberty and equality—
Baroness VICKERS: Not quite, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: It is almost complete, my Lords. It will never be fully complete and we can hardly expect that. In economics, social affairs and cultural affairs they are on a par with the other sex and in my view the same should apply in Her Majesty's Forces. I am therefore glad that at long last it has been decided that women who join the Navy or who become associated with the medical section of the Armed Forces should be fully integrated. That is a desirable change indeed.
My Lords, I have said enough, because after what Baroness Vickers said and the number of questions she asked, I fear that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will have his time cut out answering those. This Bill must of course be passed, otherwise we shall not have any Forces at all, and that is something we must never tolerate.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the spirit and informed approach with which noble Lords have debated the Second Reading. At first sight this is a complicated Bill, as every speaker has said. Indeed, my hope today is that I may be permitted simply to reply to the debate in general terns, and noble Lords will not be inhibited from raising points in Committee because the scope of the Bill is far wider than the scope of our discussion today and much of value can be done in Committee. There was only one area about which I could not agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell and that was when he said that no appreciation had been expressed by the House to the Armed Forces for the excellent and dedicated work they are doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, did just that; she paid a very moving tribute to her particular favourite arm of the Services, but I am sure that her affection spills over to the other arms as well. I wish to add my praise to that of other noble Lords because from time to time we have to remind our fellow citizens how much we owe to the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I plunge straight away into some of the matters that have been raised and perhaps the first on which I should touch is the Clause 5 decision to increase the sentence
908
which can be imposed under the summary jurisdiction of a commanding officer from 28 to 60 days. I should point out that the Army and Air Force have always been well below the Navy. I believe that a naval commanding officer has power now to sentence a sailor to 90 days' punishment under the powers of summary jurisdiction. We have decided to increase the figure for the Army and the Air Force for a simple reason. Crime is not increasing, I assure my noble friend Lord Shinwell; it is static taken as a standard proportion of the size of the Armed Forces. But experience has shown, and the Select Committee has agreed, that summary conviction and trial by a commanding officer is a much more effective and much more welcome way of dealing with simpler military offences and it is welcomed not only by the commanding officer but by the serving soldier, airman or sailor.
It is quick, effective and it is usually imposed by a man who understands the individual serving man's personal problems, and of course it is always far lower than the penalty which could be imposed by a court-martial. Ninety per cent. of men plead guilty and it seems unnecessary to set up the whole panoply of a court-martial to try a man who has pleaded guilty by a form of trial where he can receive a punishment of up to two years.
This naturally makes a short, immediate decision by his commanding officer, where the maximum penalty is about one twelfth of the maximum which the man could get under a court-martial, very welcome indeed. Of course, it also avoids the stigma of a court-martial. Many of us have marched in front of commanding officers in our time and nobody thinks a great deal the worse of us for that, but a court-martial always brings a stigma with it. It is for that reason that the extension of the powers of the commanding officers of the Army and the Air Force is welcomed by all. That is the reason for that decision.
I turn now to the question of the Standing Civilian Courts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Again, he agrees with the Select Committee and the Government that the proposals for the Standing Civilian Courts are generally sound. I am very glad that he mentioned the fact that the number of offences is surprisingly low. I am now speaking

909
without precise notes and, if I mislead the House, I will let your Lordships know, but, as I understand it, there are something like 96,000 civilians in Germany who fall within the ambit of these new proposals. The number of offences which may come before these courts is in the region of 300 in any one year. That shows a very high level of civilian discipline on the part of the dependants and civilian members of our Armed Forces in Germany. It is particularly high when one remembers that a great many of the so-called offences are of quite a minor nature.
I should like now to deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and also with the point touched on by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I know from my own personal contacts with members of the Women's Royal Naval Service that these new proposals are not altogether welcome. I share the view of the noble Baroness that the work of the WRNS should be enlarged. She may remember that I have argued that case, I hope, as strongly as she has in previous debates on this subject. We can refresh our memory as we look at the picture in the Royal Gallery which shows that, at the time of Nelson, there were many women on board our men of war. I believe that it is more a question of naval architecture than of unwillingness on the part of women to serve at sea that is inhibiting their employment at the moment. Certainly, when we last discussed this, the employment of women on survey ships was something that was being considered, although, as I understand it, no decision has yet been reached.
I believe that the whole House is in agreement that the work of the WRNS should be enlarged and widened, and we believe that the full incorporation of the WRNS into the structure of the Navy will assist this step. I believe that the advantages of their situation will be retained but that their opportunities to enlarge their area of work will grow as a result. The noble Baroness raised one or two points about the impact of the Naval Discipline Act upon the WRNS. There is only one point which I can make immediately. It is that the death penalty will of course not apply. As I understand it, it is a very rare event these days in any case and was last applied in 1953 in Kenya. It is a very rare occasion and it
910
is over 20 years ago since anyone suffered the death penalty as a result of any of the Discipline Acts.
I should like now to turn to the very well informed speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. He has an extraordinary record in the area of courts-martial and I wish I had known in the past that he was there in case I, in my military days, had fallen into some form of trouble. He made two very important points arising from his experience. He pointed out the flaw in Section 198 of the Army Act and pointed out that Part II Orders might be misused or abused in certain cases of absence without leave. He also pointed out that, in the Army and the Air Force, the Soldier's Friend or defending officer cannot claim absolute privilege for the confidences of his client, whereas in the Navy he can. I shall see that these two points are studied with care by the Department between now and Committee stage and I hope to give the noble Lord an answer that he will find satisfactory.
I shall check on what I have said when I get my Hansard tomorrow and any points that I have not answered I shall answer in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell raised a difficult point about the taking of oath by shorthand writers, but that is a matter of some complexity. Perhaps we could raise it at the Committee stage and tidy it up then. Having, to the best of my ability, answered this very well informed and sympathetic debate, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HALLMARKING AND PRECIOUS METALS: EEC REPORT
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK rose to move, That this House takes note of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Hallmarking and Precious Metals (R/3139/75). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I venture to call attention to the Report of the European Select Committee on Hallmarking. It is the practice of a Select Committee, having in many cases read a very large

911
number of papers, to draw your Lordships' attention to those which it thinks raise matters of importance. When the Committee thinks that matters are raised that require a reply from the Government, it asks for a debate. This is a case in point where we think that a debate is of importance. Of course, as must always be the way, we are critical of what the Directive says. I believe that we are helpful in being critical because, unless we insist that what the European Community does is pragmatic—that is, that it is based on sound administration—it will be like the house built on sand. Our particular task is to see as far as lies in our power that the foundations are sound. That is what we are trying to do today.
This subject is one on which, we, as a country—not myself—speak with exceptional authority. We have had hall marking for some six centuries and, so far as I know, the French are the only other nation which can show an equal or possibly a slightly longer period. We have seen in our experience and in three reports which have come out during the past century that there are three things which are essential: compulsory hall-marking, by an independent organisation, and effective enforcement. If one does not have those, there is no assurance that anybody knows what he is buying. It is because this particular Directive seems to me to go in the wrong direction I am bound to say that, in its present form, it is quite unacceptable.
There are two main reasons. The first is that it does not offer effective consumer protection. It would inevitably lower standards and it would reduce the degree of enforcement. That is something that we cannot let go. Secondly, I think that it is misconceived. The authors of the Report call on Article 100, which is the basis on which barriers to trade are removed, and say that hallmarking should come into that. Hallmarking is not a barrier to trade; it is a barrier to production of inferior quality, which is quite a different proposition. I go so far as to say that this is an abuse of Article 100; it is altogether the wrong use of this Article.
I should like to say how important this matter is. First, nobody can tell gold or silver either by looking at it or by touching it. I have seen in a gold mine
912
a seam, a yellow thing. Until it was chemically tested nobody knew what it was. No one could possibly tell what was the material of which it was constructed. That is the first point; it is undetectable. The other day I saw 16 carat white gold alongside metal and one could not possibly have told the difference between them.
Secondly, the vast majority of gold and silver articles are quite cheap; that is to say, their cost is probably nearer £10 than £100. They are not the lovely things one sees in the Mansion House or in similar places. This matter concerns a vast number of small people to whom these little articles are often treasured and valuable ornaments which may recall some great occasions in their lives. To let them be prejudiced would be a very anti-social act indeed. I am told that deception is extremely easy and extremely profitable. Of course I can only speak from second hand on this point. Added to this, 7,000 articles which were below standard, were brought into this country from Germany in three years. It is for all these reasons that I say that at present this Directive is not acceptable.
I should like to recall to your Lordships the position of the United States of America, which for 70 years now has tried to enforce hallmarking laws and has failed. The United States has not given up trying and we have given any help that we possibly could. Indeed, we have given help to other countries wherever possible. I have a note here of a number of countries—Iran, Malta, Sudan. Egypt, Turkey and Ghana—all of which I believe we have helped to set up their own assay offices.
The question we must ask is: how can we help the European Community? They have, I know, been discussing this matter for years, but they have probably been discussing it in the wrong context. They have been talking about harmonisation when they should have been talking about standards, and I think that they have got it wrong. In the Community, what President Giscard d'Estaing has called the two oldest nations in Europe, along with Holland and Eire, are the only countries with an effective assay office among all the European countries. Italy does it through the manufacturing companies, which we could not accept

913
for a moment. Denmark, I am told, does not control exports at all, and Germany, so far as I can make out, does absolutely nothing whatsoever.
One might say that it is fairly unfertile soil in which to set up hallmarking. It is not unfair to say that. As I have said, the United States has taken a long time, and if Europe set about it, it would still take a long time to do it. Furthermore, hallmarking is not a subject for compromise. In diplomacy, of course, one tries to compromise. But on this subject it must be strictly compulsory: it must be judged by completely independent organisations; and it must be rigorously enforced, because here the bad will inevitably drive out the good unless it is completely controlled. If that happened the public would not know what they were buying.
It so happens that I believe that we have an instrument to hand which is exactly what will be required to meet the particular circumstances. This is the convention, which we have signed and which came into force last month. We signed it in 1972 with our EFTA partners at that time, and it is now in force in this country. It meets the requirement of this particular commodity. All who signed it enforce standards which they accept themselves, and they also admit products of equal fineness from any other country, but they need not accept lower standards. What I believe, my Lords, is even more important than that is that it is open to any country in the world to join. I suggest that this is really a world market. Jewellery of gold and silver should be looked at as works of art. They do not really enter deeply into the economy of a country. One cannot eat them, one does not see them in factories, they are not a raw material in the ordinary sense of the term. They are a very specialised product which should be considered only on a world basis, and they need not have a special connotation in the European Community.
I very much hope that the Government will agree that this Directive is not acceptable. Frankly, we have no right to sacrifice qualities which we have built up over centuries. It would be quite wrong to do that, and to do so on a rather hazy ideal of harmonisation which, in my opinion, does not apply to this particular case. I do not know what the export
914
figures are, but I read those mysterious documents produced by the Department of Trade and it appeared to me that more than £50 million a year was exported from this country in gold and silver jewellery of one kind or another. These items would, of course, all be hallmarked. No doubt the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government can give more detailed figures.
Jewellery of gold and silver should be regarded on a world basis as a work of art, and I believe that the 1972 Convention, which is now in force here, would be of very real value to the whole world in this respect, in that each country would carry its own responsibility which it set for itself, and would accept the standards. But must say to the Government that if one wants the world to sign this Convention it is necessary to get rid of this Directive. If this Directive is put on one side I believe that other countries will in due course come to sign the Convention. I ask the Government to accept that this is an important subject to many people in this country. We want a clear cut answer and I hope that that answer will be without equivocation.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Hallmarking and Precious Metals (R/3139/75).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.28 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Earl's Select Committee on producing so excellent a report. I found it to be concise and informative; it laid out all the points most clearly. We have all had a mass of other excellent material from which to draw our conclusions. This is an extremely complicated subject, although the principle is fairly simple. On the technical side, I should be nervous of putting before an assay office any points which I raise in my speech, because I feel that they might not reach even the standard of 800. In a nutshell, I feel that the draft as it stands is unacceptable.
But let us take a constructive view on this point. In fact the matter could be handled quite simply and made acceptable if the EEC accepted the Convention. I appreciate that there are very strong objections to this by the two countries which produce most of the items; and as

915
the noble Earl said, these are in the lower price range but are vast in quantity. These countries are Germany and Italy. I believe that Germany has no intention of setting up an assay office, and so it would be very hard work for Denmark should this Directive be enforced, because I gather that most of their items would get shipped straight in there for assay.
My Lords, what is it all about? Hall-marking is really one of the oldest forms of consumer protection, and it has been going in this country for 676 years. I believe it was first brought in as a standard in 1300, and it has worked pretty well over those years. In fact, this is the one country where it has always stayed, and that is why our standards have had such a high value. But it is basically, as I say, a consumer protection measure, and, should this Directive be brought in, then I feel a lot of the consumer protection element would disappear, because nobody would really know what they were getting. The Directive uses the word " hallmark ", and, of course, this is incorrectly used, in terms of English at any rate. It is not really a quality mark—and this comes on to the main point of enforcement, which I shall deal with later.
As I was saying, we in this country have had two standards for silver: the sterling, which has lasted since 1300, at 925 parts per thousand, and going up to 950, the Britannia mark. It was rather interesting that the 925 mark was used because it was the same as money, and hence the sterling standard. I believe that in about 1540—but here I obviously stand to be corrected—money had to be debased because people were melting it down to make up silver items, and therefore we went up to the 950 Britannia standard. That is really a quite interesting point, and comes on to the fact, which the noble Earl raised, that if an 800 standard is brought in then the standard throughout would drop; we should be running on a much poorer standard, and not only would we not have the protection but I feel we would all lose out.
On the question of what is happening at the moment, I believe that in 1975 the British assay offices assayed British goods of a total weight of 91 tons of gold and 138 tons of silver. I quote these figures to put the position into perspective with the fact that the Italians produced 360 tons
916
of, as I say, so-called gold and 700 tons of so-called silver; but, in all fairness, their quality varies considerably from well below the 800 to some items which are very high in quality. But, as was said, the question of forgery comes in, and the Italians produce a very fine line in Georgian silver. It is beautifully hallmarked, but it is still forgery. I believe the question of enforcement was brought to the notice of the Italian police and not much was done about it. I believe that 5 per cent. of the items brought before the British assay centres were found to be below standard. It was known that those items were going to be assayed, so I dread to think what the level of quality was of those items which were going to miss being assayed. I believe that some of the Italian silver—and here again I stand to be corrected by the noble Earl—was of such a low quality that it had to be silver-plated to make it look good. Therefore, I believe that to go down below 800 makes it look quite evident that it is not proper silver.
Some of the objections which are being raised I have already covered; for instance, on the silver standard of 800. Gold is a little more complicated in that the standard in the EEC mark would be higher, but 9 carat has been used for a very long time and is well accepted throughout the world as the standard. Therefore, I do not really see the point of going up to the standard suggested in the EEC document.
On the question of safeguards and standards, I feel that the Directive is totally inadequate, mainly because of enforcement. We know that, in the past, America has tried to have a hallmarking system and that it has failed mainly because of the problems of enforcement. The Directive does not lay down, so far as I can see, any way in which the standards can be held, and it really comes on to the obligations of EEC Members. These obligations seem to be inadequate to enforce the standards. I believe that Article 10 could allow Members who are against hallmarking to weaken standards so that they are no longer a consumer protection. This is on the question of technical progress, where such Members could bring in reasons and perhaps outvote other Members. So I think this is an area which would need to be looked at very carefully. One other point is that the marks which are suggested are obviously

917
far too small and too intricate. They wear out and very quickly become unrecognisable.
My Lords, since many other speakers will have a much greater knowledge of this subject than I, I wish to touch only on the main aspect of our objections to the Directive as it stands. I believe that at the moment the draft Directive comes under Article 100 of the Treaty, and, therefore, the opinion of the European Parliament is mandatory. The draft Directive was referred in the usual way to committee by the president of the European Parliament, so the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee has been designated the responsible committee and has a responsibility for technical barriers to trade.
I thought the point raised by the noble Earl was so true here, that hallmarking is not a barrier to trade; it is a consumer protection measure. The committee I have just referred to, the members of which include two Members of your Lordships' House, Lord Ardwick and Lord Gordon-Walker, have said that the draft Directive is really a consumer affairs matter and that the responsibility ought to be taken over by the Consumer Affairs Committee, or that it should give an opinion, at least, to the Economic Committee. Therefore, at the moment, I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to say that this question has not yet been resolved.
To summarise, the European Parliament has not given its opinion on the draft Directive, so the debate in your Lordships' Chamber today is really quite timely. I believe that the earliest plenary session to which the Committee report could be presented for approval is that in September, but I think that is probably unlikely and that it will be much later. I feel we must press our view at every stage. When this Directive comes before the Council of Permanent Representatives and, if it should go through there, when it finally comes to the Council of Ministers, I feel we must try to get it changed so that it takes the form of the Convention. I believe that in this way standards can be maintained and consumers protected.
5.39 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, when I was a child we used to have a game on the last day of the month. When we
918
went to bed we said, " hares ", and the rules were that if you could go through to the following morning and say nothing except " rabbits ", then God would send you something good. I said " hares " last night, but I forgot to say " rabbits - this morning; and I do not know that up to date God has sent me anything good. This is a diamond anniversary for me, because at this very moment, shall I say, 60 years ago, I was standing in the ruined village of La Boiselle with 700 or so of my colleagues lying on the wire or severely wounded. All that in one day! For months afterwards I had a very cynical approach to military operations, I can tell your Lordships. From then to today is a very far cry. Our opponents of that time are now in the same organisation as we are in. It looks sometimes as though it is by a near miracle that this has happened. These things historically go only slowly.
We are discussing today the small item of the Directive about hallmarks. We have had the case put absolutely splendidly by our Chairman of the " B " Sub-Committee of the Select Committee for Europe. May I say at this juncture that I hope the House knows, and will pardon me for saying it, that a tremendous amount of work is being done on this Select Committee for Europe that perhaps is not appreciated by the average Member either of the other place or of this House, and that it would do some Members good sometimes to go up to Room 3B or 3A and listen to the investigations going on with the idea of making quite certain that nothing slips through that should not.
Practically every point has been touched upon and I do not propose to go over the same ground. I want merely to draw your Lordships' attention to one very important aspect which is critical but nevertheless of a constructive nature. If we need a separate system for hallmarking for the EEC, it would be simple to put it into operation by adopting the International Convention Agreement which was ratified on April 1st and put into operation on June 1st. Why on earth are we faced with a duplication of effort and with time wasted in witnesses coming forward to talk to the Committee and so on, when there is machinery at hand which, if put into operation—as it easily could be—would do the job very well indeed ?

919
It has been said that the manufacture of articles of precious metal is an art. It is also a craft. It is one of the industries which has both art and craft. In the trade that I was brought up in, the wool trade, you were able, if you were an expert, to identify materials by touch or by sight. I understand from better evidence than I can supply, evidence from the Hallmarks Council, that it is impossible to make positive identification either by feel or by touch. If that is the case, there is no doubt that an independent assessment of the article is absolutely and totally essential. If this Directive now before the House were to be approved, it would mean that we should have a whole lot of unidentifiable articles circulating in this country to the detriment of our artists and craftsmen.
My Lords, I believe this: that we should hang on to quality as long as we can. We should put up a fight when people are trying to put us off quality. We know how difficult it is to please our critics on the question of production and productivity and the increasing of the growth rate; we know that we are behind most of the Western countries of the world. But there is one thing on which we can hold up our heads and that is quality. Many of our industries have a long tradition and heritage of knowing how to make things; this is one of them. I hope, in conclusion, that when the Minister comes to reply, he will confirm what the Committee has put to the House, that this Directive should be rejected.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, when I saw on the Order Paper the word " hallmarking ", I did not know what it was about. It is, generally speaking, a subject that I know is very important and of great interest, so I took the trouble to get what I would not otherwise have got; that is, the Report of the Select Committee. I certainly want to join with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and others in thanking the Chairman and other noble Lords who have brought this matter to our attention. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is right when he says that many of us are not aware of the great work going on in these Committees. It is something for which we are deeply indebted to those who carry it out.
920
So far as I am concerned, I should like first to ask a question of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. In the Report it tells us about the legal implications, and it says that an amendment of the Hallmarking Act of 1973 will be necessary. It goes on to say that it may be possible to make the amendment, assuming that we accept this, by delegated legislation. I am not clear what that means. Does that mean that delegated legislation is not legislation which would come before the House?—because I would consider it a very serious point that something could go through without our knowing about it and without our having the opportunity to discuss it and, if necessary, if things go wrong, to turn it down. So much for the question.
My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. The first is one that other speakers have made. When something has been in existence for many hundreds of years, then one wants to be careful before making a change. I do not know why in this case Scotland was slightly behind the English in introducing the hallmarking system. Perhaps it was because the English were quicker to realise the value of debasing and there had to be protection—which is after all the purpose of all this—before this was the case in Scotland. Be that as it may, I think it is very important that we should not rush into anything. Certainly, after (shall we say?) hundreds of years, we find two things on our plate in a short time. First, the EFTA Convention, which I understand is acceptable, and, second, this draft Directive. Why this sudden worry? As I understand it, there is no worry about the EFTA Convention which lets us go on as we are; but on the other hand it is because there is a misconceived idea of what this is all about. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out in his original speech, the purpose of hallmarking is consumer protection, whereas the purpose of the draft Directive is increasing trade. Those two things may well not be compatible.
My second point is not only that our system has worked well, but that it has become part of the English language: we talk about somebody and say that he is a " sterling fellow ". What does that mean ? It means he is top quality. Here we are talking about something which may be

921
changed. No longer may we find that we have our own sterling quality but that possibly silver may be debased to the 800 out of a 1,000 parts level. On page 16 of the Report the consequences of that can be found. Colonel Grimsley, who gave evidence, was asked about the difference between the 925 and the 800 standard. He said that it had a more metallic look than the English sterling silver. This is something very significant. He went on to say this:
"… in order to make it more acceptable the Continental manufacturer plates it with pure silver ".
That surely gives the whole case away; that shows that the whole idea of consumer protection falls to the ground. They take an object which is of a relatively base standard and deliberately cover it with pure silver to disguise what they have, and there is no longer any consumer protection. That, after all, is the whole purpose of our having the hallmark.
So whatever might be the rights and wrongs in some degree, what is clear from the evidence is that the thing could well be a fraud. If ever it reaches a point when such a situation arises, I hope that the trade will set their minds and hearts against an action which would in the end, under Gresham's Law, mean that the bad drives out the good.
My last point is on what I call the aesthetic side of this matter. One of the great attractions of silver is the hallmarks. They are put into a prominent place and they add to the whole look and distinction of the piece of silver. Those are placed with great skill. My Lords, if you have not seen that, I strongly advise you to do so because it is an art in itself. What are we being asked ? We are being asked to have yet another mark, one which seems confusing, one which will not add to the distinction of the article. Then there is something which is said to be secret—a secret mark. I do not know what that means. All I know is that it is very disturbing. For those reasons, I agree with all those who have said that the Government should plainly stick their toes in and not go ahead on anything to do with the draft Directive.
5.54 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I cannot dissent from anything that
922
has so far been said in this evening's debate; neither do I want, if I can help it, to repeat the forceful argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who has said all that needs to be said from the point of view of the Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member, regarding the principle. I think, however, it may he fair to remind your Lordships that the EEC started their work on hall-marking long before we became Members, and it may not be unfair to suggest that what has now been produced by them is but a pale shadow of our own system, a shadow so pale and so developed by the time we joined the EEC that it was not possible, in the four meetings that we were able to attend, to strengthen it.
This is not to suggest that our industry is against change, because the goldsmithing and silversmithing industry have been happy to accept the EFTA Convention. It is in many respects somewhat better than some of the more narrow aspects we enjoy under our hallmarking system. I think it is also necessary to remind ourselves that during May and June of 1973, we had the Hallmarking Bill before us, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. The whole area of hallmarking was thoroughly investigated. It is also fair to remind ourselves that it was my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn who, as a Minister at that time, reminded us that some of the things we were discussing and deciding upon during the passage of that Bill might be contrary to those things which were then being discussed in the European Community. Nevertheless, the other place and your Lordships' House passed that Hallmarking Bill, and as an Act it stands as a very much improved piece of legislation.
Added to the EFTA Convention, there can be no reason why this country should have to engage in this harmonisation Directive. It does nothing for our gold-smithing, silversmithing and jewellery industry. The tolerances suggested are so wide of what we have become used to that it would make a farce of all that has been built up in this country and accepted throughout the world over the past 500, 600 or 700 years.
The growth of goldsmithing and silversmithing in this country has been enormous. It has been suggested that in recent times our exports have exceeded

923
£50 million. My understanding was that goldsmith, silversmith and jewellery products far exceeded that figure. In fact it goes into three figures of millions of pounds. Our products are sought after throughout the world; witness the recent exhibition and sale in the Middle East, when several thousand pounds of British designed, craft-made silver goods and jewellery goods were sold in a matter of days.
There are far more entrants into the crafts of goldsmithing and silversmithing than ever before. That industry is becoming more important and the English entries are more widely accepted throughout the world, so giving encouragement to craftsmen. There are a number of international exhibitions and competitions held each year. In successive years English craftsmen and English entrants have figured prominently in the list of award winners. There can be no reason why we should accept under any guise whatsoever any Regulation that reduces our own competitiveness and our own quality.
My Lords, the industry is important to us, and it is fair for the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to remind us about the 800 standard. He quoted from the Report. I thought he was going to quote the piece of evidence which referred to reducing the standard from 925 to 800 under the guise of improved consumer choice. The witness said that it was a £25 item but only about £I would be reduced from the price. Therefore, in fact the consumer's choice is not widely enhanced but the craftman's choice is very, very badly damaged.
There was one other point which has not so far been made concerning platinum, and I should like to refer to this. In the draft Directive it suggests that the tolerance of platinum should be increased, but at one and the same time the addition of iridium should be allowed. Iridium is added mostly in platinum jewellery, and certainly in white gold jewellery, to give added strength to the claw mounting. I understand that it is not essential for it to be added because platinum is hard in itself and is technically capable of being used to make a satisfactory mount. If we accepted the idea that a certain percentage of additional material is to be allowed, then the whole value of the content of an item is even
924
further reduced: in other words, the tolerance is widened. if we allow such a thing to happen, we have little argument to bring to bear if in the future another material is found with similar qualities but of a vastly lower value, which in itself increases the tolerance and reduces the total value of the articles.
I do not believe that the members of the industry who gave evidence to us are being in any way narrow-minded about this. I believe, together with other noble Lords who have spoken, that the insistence upon those standards which are embodied in our hallmarking system are very definitely a consumer protection and a guardian of quality, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. Quality must be guarded and fought for, unless we are to sink lower and lower in all fields.
Notwithstanding that I am a very staunch supporter of the European Economic Communitty, I believe that we can afford to be parochial here. We have something in this country that is better than anything else in the world and I think that we should use all our endeavours to defend it, to hold it and to ensure that if any change is made throughout the world it must be better than what we have today. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support this view, which is that embodied in the Report of this Committee.
6.4 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I hesitate to thrust yet one more speech upon your Lordships' House, but I do so for two reasons. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who is Chairman of the British Hallmarking Council and who wanted to be here today to give his views, is unfortunately unable to be present, and I have been asked to express the views of the British Hall-marking Council during this debate. Secondly, I was President of the Board of Trade at the time when EFTA, which came under my broad aegis as the British Minister responsible, were busy hammering out the Convention. Therefore, I feel that I have been as deeply involved as anyone in your Lordships' House, and perhaps I might be forgiven if I make a short speech and try to point out particular things which I think are of importance.

925
As several speakers have said, hall-marking came in for reasons of consumer protection but—let us not make any bones about it—it was simply because silver and gold were the currency of the day. If you allowed your silver and gold articles to be debased, you put a tremendous strain on the people who wanted to save money—because there were no banks at that time, as some of your Lordships will know only too well. People used to order their silver from the merchants, not by saying " I want a beautiful tankard ", but by saying, " I want 60 ounces of silver." That was the way they saved their money.
Perhaps I may slightly correct what my noble friend Lord Redesdale said concerning what happened in the middle of the sixteenth century. That was the time when the lion first appeared on our hallmarking system, and it was meant to underline the fact that Henry VIII had debased the currency but that silver had remained of the same quality. This was extremely important then, and it remains so today. But the fact of the matter is—and I speak now as a member of the Hallmarking Council—the protection of the consumer is still quite definitely our No. I priority. We have a representative Council representing the unions, the " statutory women ", the manufacturers and everybody else, and we try to guide our rules so as to make everything as simple as possible for the people who manufacture the many hundreds and thousands of pieces that go into the jewellery and silver trade and to enable them to do so without unnecessary restrictions, but never at the expense of the consumer.
Several people, including my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in his opening of the debate, have mentioned the fact that this is done by the EEC on the ground that it is a non-tariff barrier to trade. As an ex-Minister at the Board of Trade, I bow to nobody in my knowledge of possible non-tariff barriers to trade that can be promoted if one wants to have them. There is very little that I do not know about them in almost every field—but this is not one of them. It would be perfectly possible to say, if one so wanted, that the prevention of forgery of currency is a non-tariff barrier to trade. Of course it is—in exactly the same sense. We should all be able to trade much more easily
926
with France and Germany if we could mint their coinage and print their money and trade with them in that way; but it would not last for very long. Nor, I suggest to your Lordships, would the trade in valuable goods, in silver, gold and so on, if one abolished the practical and sensible hallmarking system we have built up.
I should like to stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas, about the quality which is guaranteed by the hallmark. It is not just—and I do not think it was meant in that sense—the quality of the metal which goes into it which is discovered from looking at the hallmark: it is the quality of the craftsmanship as well, because in nine cases out of ten you have the authenticity of the piece guaranteed by the hallmark. That has gone on, though not perhaps totally, for the last 600 years because there were pieces that slipped through perhaps with only the maker's mark, and sometimes without that but with other marks. In most cases, however, you can pick out a piece of silver made anywhere in the British Isles and see when and where it is made and who the artist, designer and maker was. This is of enormous value to the trade we do in the export field—sometimes rather sadly in this respect, because the best of our British products go all round the world.
I believe it is right that the very considerable craftsmen that we have today, such as Leslie Durbin, who makes as fine silver as anybody ever produced in the British Isles, should be able to rely in two or three hundred years' time on people saying: " That's a piece made by Durbin ", in exactly the same way as people now pay enormous sums of money for a piece made by Paul Lamerie. They have the same right to be protected, and to be encouraged to pursue their craft and their skills.
But, of course, this is a tiny piece of the whole hallmarking operation. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, the vast majority of pieces that go through the halls have values of the order of £10 or £15. Many of them are not craft work in any real sense. There will be tens of thousands of cases for gold and silver watches and things of that kind, which are a run-of-the-mill operation, but in regard to which the consumer has the

927
right to demand a proper standard of protection. On all these things we are working with the British Hallmarking Council.
If I may, without duplicating what has been said, I should like to say a quick word about the Convention. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who said that it would be quite easy to drop this Directive and get the European Common Market countries to accept the principles behind the Convention. I do not want in any way to bring unnecessary difficulties before your Lordships, but I assure you that it would not be easy. It would be right, but it would not be easy. It took, I think, four years to get the Convention hammered out, and I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is better than our system; I think it is slightly worse. We had to make one or two concessions which, quite honestly, from the strict point of view that we have maintained for 600 years, I do not think we were quite entitled to do, but we reached an agreement and it is acceptable.
However, that was in EFTA, and those of your Lordships who have ever worked in EFTA will no doubt agree with me that, on the whole, they are the nicest community of people with whom one could work. There was a great community of interest and feeling. Every single one of the countries wanted to establish a practical and sensible method of regulating hallmarking. It took us four years to do it, and it is a success. It will certainly not be so easy to achieve this within the Nine. Three of the Nine were in the EFTA Convention and therefore were on our side, so to speak. But there are very many countries—Germany and Italy have been referred to, and Luxembourg is another—where there are no regulations, and Belgium and Denmark have voluntary regulations. But in at least two or three of these countries there is the greatest possible opposition, because they like producing what I will not call shoddy goods, but goods which are not up to the standard to which we and our public have been used, and it will be quite a problem. But this is what we should aim for.
May I finish by saying that, much as I appreciate the Report which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has made to your
928
Lordships' House, and much as I enjoyed his speech, I believe I am speaking on behalf of the whole Hallmarking Council when I say that I could wish that we were not today just taking note of this Report, but that we were saying firmly and clearly to our partners in the EEC, " We will not accept this Directive, because it is inferior and is a bad compromise." There are a very small number of disreputable makers of jewellery and silverware in this country who would drive a horse and cart through this Directive. If they could do it, then a very much larger number of disreputable jewellers and silversmiths in Europe would be driving not a horse and cart but 400 London buses through it. I hope so much that the Government will make this view absolutely plain to Europe when they discuss this subject with them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening. I wish to declare an interest in the platinum trade, and I shall take up only two or three minutes of your Lordships' time. Valuable information has been given to the House about the hallmarking system. There seems to be a wild and fantastic desire in the EEC not to give mankind time enough to assimilate what this striking watershed in economic, social and other affairs is doing to European man. They also seem to want to justify their existence by controlling hops, by getting mountains of things and suddenly interfering in different matters. There is nothing in the world that is better than our hallmarking system, and we have had a reiteration of the problem of quality, Gresham's Law and the bad driving out the good.
We can be proud of the platinum industry, which is fairly new. The biggest buyer of platinum for making jewellery is Japan, and when we talk about solder for making jewellery, and claws for setting stones in a piece of platinum craftsmanship, we must be very careful about adding iridium. What is the ultimate quality of the piece to be ? We were very proud of the fact—and it is all there at the back of the Vienna Convention—that only a year or so ago we established for platinum a hallmark that is recognised all over the world. I had the privilege to be at a great convention in London only a month or so ago, where we had hundreds of platinum dealers from all over the world looking

929
towards this as one of the areas where there is absolute integrity, so far as that is humanly possible, and we are building all this up.
At this juncture, we should he grateful to this Committee—I do not want to make an anti-EEC speech—for watching over our interests and preserving Britain's " know-how " of 600 or so years in the field of gold, silver and, more recently, platinum. I appeal to the Committee to try to find a formula whereby the common sense and " know-how "—and I am not being chauvinistically British—of craftsmen, which we have acquired in precious metals, will be listened to in the committees of the EEC. I have had my three minutes, so I will keep my word to my noble friend on the Front Bench and sit down.
6.18 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, if your Lordships will pardon a brief intervention from me, I am here by happy coincidence because a Committee collapsed just before lunch in Brussels today, largely, I think, because the chamber in which we were sitting was far less well air-conditioned than this one. But since my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, perfectly correctly, and that of my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, may I explain that when those of us on the Economic and Social Committee steered this matter towards the specialist committee dealing with consumer affairs we were not just trying to slough-off the problem. We thought that was the most effective political way of dealing with this problem, about which there may be more than one view when the matter is debated before Parliament.
I assure your Lordships that there are remarkably strong feelings among the British delegation, on both the Conservative and Labour sides. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the one Liberal there, but he is a civilised man and I am quite sure that he will share our feelings. What is remarkable is that, no matter how poor we are, each one of us has some piece of silver which is a memento. We value it not only for its sentimental virtues, but also because silver is a singularly beautiful and tactile metal and everybody feels strongly about it. I assure your Lordships that when this matter eventually goes before the European
930
Parliament the British delegation, of all Parties, will be united, even those who are the most ardent Europeans or very dedicated harmonisers, like my noble friend Lord Davies. They will all be together opposing this draft Directive. The evidence contained in this Report and in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will fortify us in our resolve.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, in case the noble Lord is referring to me as Lord Gladwyn, I must protect Lord Gladwyn!
6.20 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as so often happens when your Lordships' House is dealing with a specialised subject, as I think we can call this one, there becomes quickly evident in one quarter or another a great deal of expertise which can be brought to bear upon it. This has certainly proved to be the case in the short but fascinating debate that we have had today. There is the example of the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, a member of the British Hallmarking Council, who, in a most expert way, was able to bring his experience to our notice. Other noble Lords have displayed an expertise not necessarily derived from their direct association with a trade or problem, but from their diligent attention to work on one or other of your Lordships' Committees, in this case the Scrutiny Committee. In other cases—let it be said starting from scratch in some cases—noble Lords have pursued diligently their own research and have become experts almost overnight. Sometimes that happens with me!
We have had an extremely useful debate. I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as chairman of the committee that has produced this report, for having taken the initiative to bring it on to the Floor of the House and to give us this opportunity to debate it. I would join with those who have paid tribute to the excellent work that this and other similar committees have done. Indeed, I would also join the noble Earl in his insistence that this is the duty of these committees and of Parliament. Whatever our attitude may be to what goes on in general in Brussels, as the noble Earl so rightly stressed, it is our duty to put forward firmly and

931
strongly such criticisms of what emerges from Brussels as we feel we should, after discussion and debate. I am glad, therefore, to be able to indicate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that I agree with practically everything that has been said by your Lordships in this debate. To some extent I shall need to repeat some of the points which have been made. I do not apologise for doing so, because it is necessary to repeat these points, just to emphasise that Her Majesty's Government agree with them.
I did not necessarily follow the point made by my noble friend Lord Rhodes about rabbits, but I agreed with everything else that he said. Certainly we all agree with him that what is at stake is British quality and that it is up to us to insist that we want to maintain standards of quality.
Hallmarking in one form or another dates from the Middle Ages. Indeed, I believe that the report of the Scrutiny Committee states that it dates from the reign of Edward I, and in Scotland since the Act of Union. It is almost certainly the oldest known form of consumer protection, a point that has been stressed by a number of noble Lords. Therefore it is of particular interest to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection whose spokesman on this occasion I am. In the field of the production of goods made of precious metals, British products have a world wide reputation for their quality standards, and are a credit both to those who make the goods and to those who are responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained.
Hallmarking in this country is governed by a comparatively recent Act—the Hallmarking Act 1973—and the responsibility for applying the standards derived from that Act rests with four independent assay offices. This Act of 1973 was in part designed to anticipate the ratification by the United Kingdom of the international Convention to which so much reference has been made—the Convention on the Control and Marking of Articles of Precious Metals—which came into force on 1st June, 1976. The other States which have ratified so far are Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden, while Portugal and Norway have announced their intention of doing
932
so. The Convention is open for signature by all countries. It is true that it has an EFTA origin, but it is open for signature by other countries and in that sense is truly an international Convention; that is to say, all those countries can sign it whose hallmarking arrangements are consistent with its provisions, and I hope that in due course many other Governments will decide to accept it.
Perhaps I should point out the main features of the Convention. First, it provides for the acceptance by signatory States of articles assayed in other signatory States. Thus it helps to promote international trade. Secondly, it permits individual States to maintain their own existing standards of fineness. Thirdly, it contains technical provisions which, as I understand it, are fully compatible with those used in this country. The fourth point is that while the Convention obviously does not permit routine and everyday checks on marked articles, it allows occasional checks to be made by the enforcement officers. There is a specific procedure if it is discovered that there is repeated evidence that articles coming from a particular assay office overseas are of a lower standard of fineness than the standard marked upon them. Therefore it allows for both testing and action.
In this debate we are concerned mainly with the draft EEC Directive on articles of precious metals. This would require the free movement of articles which have been tested and marked by an assay office notified by any Member State—marked, that is to say, with an appropriate mark indicating that they comply with certain Community standards of fineness. The proposal, which was submitted to the Council of Ministers in December 1975, is based on optional harmonisation. It would allow Member States to retain their existing hallmarking systems and standards of fineness and to adhere to the international Convention, or it would enable them to do without any system of control. But—and I think this is the point that has troubled so many noble Lords—States would have to admit articles bearing the " E " mark, even if the standards were lower than their domestic or the Convention's standards.
It is that point, I know, which is behind the Committee's recommendations and

933
behind the anxieties which the trade have expressed. Indeed, it would mean that domestic manufacturers would in practice have to be given the same facility of operating a lower standard. At present the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Holland have compulsory hallmarking; that is, imported articles must be tested and hallmarked on arrival even though they may already bear marks applied in other countries. Germany and Italy have no hallmarking by independent assay offices. Belgium and Denmark have only voluntary hallmarking. I thought it was perhaps useful to summarise the position in that way.
The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has received a number of representations on this Directive. It appears to us from this correspondence that the Commission's proposals as they stand would operate to the disadvantage of our trade, and would also undermine the protection for the consumer provided by our present hallmarking system. The Scrutiny Committee in Appendix 2 to its Report has set out very clearly the detailed criticisms of the Commission's proposals, and as it will not take too long I think it is worth my mentioning four or five of the points that the Committee has made as being ones which I think are of some special importance.
First, the draft Directive omitted to prescribe reliable and accurate methods of assay for normal use by all assay offices; secondly, it allows unjustifiably high tolerances in determining fineness; thirdly, it provides inadequate safeguards against the circulation of articles which might not comply with the standards marked on them; fourthly, it does not specify that assay offices must be fully independent of trade interests; fifthly, there are a number of more technical criticisms particularly in relation to the ability of the consumer to distinguish one mark from another.
These criticisms, which I thought were worth repeating, represent fears which are, I believe, shared by representatives of both trade and consumer interests in this country. It sometimes happens that the trade has one point of view and the consumer interest has a conflicting point of view; but I believe it is true to say that on those points that I have listed there is common ground as between trade and consumer interests. I believe this was borne
934
out in the evidence that was brought before the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that noble Lords would also share my view on the need to ensure that our existing arrangements which work both in the interests of the consumers and of the British trade interests involved should be maintained to the maximum degree possible.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of standards, and particularly the EEC proposal for a standard for silver of 800 degrees of fineness, which would be inconsistent with the standard of 925 degrees in use in the United Kingdom at the present time. I know that there are varying views on the best standard to be adopted from the consumers' point of view. I believe the Consumers' Association made some points in this connection, but I am sure that we must take serious account of the view of the United Kingdom trade that their interests would be significantly damaged by the acceptance of an 800 standard for silver—all the more so since the EEC's proposal makes no mention of a 9 carat standard in the case of gold.
It seems clear to us that the Convention is preferable to the proposed Directive in a number of respects. It has a specific procedure for dealing with inaccurately marked articles. Its technical provisions are more consistent with our own. It permits signatory countries to maintain their present standards while, as I have stressed, by being open to acceptance by all countries, it has an important advantage in relation to products of this kind in which there is a significant international trade. In view of these advantages of the Convention over the Directive, we feel bound to question the need for any further international system by EEC countries which might indeed be confusing, both to traders and to consumers, unless its provisions are brought much closer to those of the Convention.
Two specific points were raised by noble Lords to which I should like to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the words in the Committee's Report about delegated legislation. That implies that Statutory Instruments would be involved which would he laid before both Houses of Parliament. In some cases, according to the particular part of the Act, it would be the Negative

935
Resolution procedure and in other cases it would be the Affirmative Resolution procedure; but in either case of course the matter is in the hands of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made an interesting point, quoting the efforts of my noble friends Lord Ardwick and Lord Gordon-Walker. I listened with particular interest to the suggestion that in Brussels we should urge that it be dealt with as a consumer protection matter. As I understand it, it has not yet been decided which particular body in Brussels deals with this. I may be wrong on that, but I do not think it has yet been decided, and certainly I can assure the noble Lord that not only did I listen with interest to the point that he made, but I shall urge that the point be taken forward to Brussels in order that we may get it regarded as a consumer protection matter and dealt with appropriately in Brussels in accordance with that.
Of course, discussion of the draft Directive is at an early stage and I am sure noble Lords will not expect me now to indicate categorically how far on particular questions we might go during the course of discussions with our EEC partners. However, in welcoming the Report—and I hope I have made it clear that I do welcome the Report—by the Scrutiny Committee I can assure the House that we intend to make it clear to our friends in Brussels that the draft Directive as it stands cannot receive our support. Indeed I would say that Her Majesty's Government will have gained considerable and welcome support from the vigorous and expert opinions that have been expressed in this debate this afternoon. I end as I began, by commending and thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his initiative in the matter.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, it is seldom that we in this House have such
936
a wholly satisfactory reply from the Government. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his extremely robust reply. I would merely say that if by any chance there is difficulty in Europe, I hope he will not hesitate to inform us so that we might rise again. I am so glad to see that we have with us the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. May I thank noble Lords for supporting me in this, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  FISH FARMING IN SCOTLAND
  FISH FARMING IN SCOTLAND