Sitting of 29 July 1976

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

  METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday next.

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

  CROMARTY PETRôLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Lorries (Loading Regulations)
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that the regulations designed to prevent the overloading of heavy goods vehicles are being observed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that roadside spot checks of heavy goods vehicles by the RUC and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment indicate that a substantial majority of vehicles comply with the loading limits. However, in the 12 months ending April 1976, 343 overloadings were detected and 59 prosecutions initiated.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that that is a substantial number? The
    848
    majority of law-abiding companies that originally set out loyally to obey and comply with the regulations are now meeting with unfair competition from a tiny minority of unscrupulous companies that in some cases are using lorries designed to carry loads of 13½ tons to carry loads of 22 tons. Will the Minister ensure that there is overall and even enforcement of the regulations?
    Mr. Dunn: I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. If he gives the Department the names and addresses of those concerned, we shall make further inquiries.
    Mr. Cohenasked 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): The consultative document was published on Tuesday 27th July and copies have been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend indicate the measure of agreement that exists on comprehensive education in Northern Ireland among the bodies associated with the provision of education? Will he indicate what the timetable for implementation may be, arising from this document?
    Mr. Moyle: The object of the consultative document is to promote a discussion in the Province, and the measure of agreement will emerge from that. I am allowing approximately six months for a public debate, but it will not be cut firmly at that time if the debate is still continuing. If there is to be a White Paper, it will be in the spring of 1977. Legislation, if required, will not be until the 1977–78 Session.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to give a costing to the scheme as envisaged in his consultative document, or a scheme based on it? Will he assure the House that he will not replace the already adequate education system with an untried and costly system that will bear heavily on a Province that will be seriously affected by financial restriction?
    Mr. Moyle: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I gave him that assurance

    849
    on the last occasion we had Northern Ireland parliamentary Questions. An outline costing for the scheme is contained in the consultative document, and a copy is being sent to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most agreeable and constant features of educational life in Northern Ireland is the equitable way in which the schools have been treated? Schools of all denominations have been treated with generosity and on an equitable basis. This has hapened under all Governments in Northern Ireland and here. Will the Minister give an assurance that this state of affairs will be fostered and permeated?
    Mr. Moyle: I am pleased to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the consultative document uses the expressions "Roman Catholic sector" and "non-Roman Catholic sector"? Does he realise that "non-Roman Catholic sector" is an offensive way in which to describe the schools provided for the majority of Ulster people, when it is just as easy to refer to the controlled schools and the Protestant voluntary schools? Will he issue a correction to remove this offending description?
    Mr. Moyle: It was not intended to be offensive, and I do not regard it as offensive. I shall not alter the document as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public debate to which he has referred has already begun? On the one hand, many teachers have been expressing their dislike of the 11-plus examination, but, on the other, the Association of Governing Bodies of Voluntary Schools has expressed the opinion that the abolition of the 11-plus, which so many teachers and others want, need not lead to the abolition of the 58 voluntary grammar schools, Catholic, Protestant and non-denominational, that have served Ulster so well?
    Mr. Moyle: As is stated in the consultative document, it is my desire to bring the voluntary schools into the reorganised system of secondary educa-
    850
    tion by consent. I shall do my best to achieve that.

    Rent Arrears
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrears of rent are outstanding for publicly owned housing; and what steps are being taken to recover the arrears.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It is estimated that Housing Executive tenants owe £3·4 million for rent, £1·7 million for rates and £0·1 million for heating charges. Arrears are being recovered by allocations of social security benefits, under which some 2,170 tenants are having deductions made, and a further 500 cases per week are now being referred to the Housing Executive for possible allocation of benefits.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend inform the House whether any of these arrears are due to the rent strikes, for instance, by the minority community, or do the arrears stretch across both communities?
    Mr. Concannon: The Department does not now divide the rent arrears between those who were involved in the rent strike and other defaulters. The former's arrears have been reduced to such an amount that it is hardly worth trying to divide them up. On the other hand, a new feature in Northern Ireland is that rent arrears are divided between the two communities.
    Mr. Carson: Will the Minister inform us how many deductions are being made from wages? Will he also inform us how many people owing between £400 and £500 in arrears have now left the area, and what steps are being taken to recover these outstanding debts?
    Mr. Concannon: We are going to recover the outstanding amounts. There will be no amnesty. There are 120 public employees having deductions made from their salaries and 1,350 tenants have been taken before the enforcement of judgments office. We intend collecting these arrears.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the problems being encountered by private landlords in areas where normal policing cannot be carried out? What

    851
    advice has been given to private landlords who are suffering as much as people in the public sector?
    Mr. Concannon: This matter is dealt with in the Porter Report, on which I have made a statement. I hope that legislation will be brought before the House in due course. This is not a new point. Policing in certain areas is not yet in full force. This situation has been going on for some time. Private landlords can take these individuals to court.

    Non-Denominational Education
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from and what meeting he has arranged with educational organisations about the ending of sectarian segregation in education.
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will hold consultations with a view to extending the provision of education on a non-denominational basis in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Nigel Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he proposes to convene a conference of interested parties to identify whether and by what means shared schools could be made available in Northern Ireland to those parents who wish this for their children.
    Mr. Moyle: It is not the intention of the Government to deprive parents of the right to have their children educated in accordance with their religious choice. A proposal for shared school governing bodies was made by Mr. Basil McIvor, Minister for Education in the power-sharing Executive, in May 1974. Consultation on this proposal subsequently did not reveal sufficient support to warrant legislation. I have noted a recent renewal of interest in similar proposals to these put forward by Mr. McIvor and I am at present reviewing how these might be further considered.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister stick to the view that he firmly expressed about a year ago, that comprehensive reorganisation should be undertaken in Northern Ireland, and that this upheaval should take place without any move
    852
    towards practical desegregation at local level where it is desired and sought by local parents? Is he prepared to take a fairly flexible view, or to contemplate with equanimity a major educational upheaval on the issue of selection but with no change in the direction of desegregation, where it is sought?
    Mr. Moyle: The two issues of comprehensive or secondary reorganisation and desegregation are entirely separate. The consultative document was issued on the basis that the majority of Catholic parents will want to send their children to Catholic schools and the majority of non-Catholic parents will want to send their children to non-Catholic schools. I have not sought to depart from the existing arrangement in that respect.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while recognising that religious tuition should be freely available in Northern Ireland, many of us believe that educational apartheid can lead to mistrust and even conflict, and that that may be one of the roots of the problem? Will he seriously examine any possibility of improving the situation by bringing children closer together?
    Mr. Moyle: Where there is a desire for children of both sects to go to the same school, there is provision in existing arrangements whereby that can be achieved. There would have to be general agreement across the sectarian divide for non-sectarian proposals to make a contribution to the future of Northern Ireland.
    Sir N. Fisher: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the idea of experiments, at any rate, in shared schooling was not only accepted by Mr. Faulkner's Executive in 1974 but has since been welcomed by the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, and by many of the Catholic laity. I do not know about the church hierarchy. When does he think that it may be possible to convene the conference that the Secretary of State has undertaken to hold?
    Mr. Moyle: I have not yet decided that the conference is the appropriate way to go ahead. That is a suggestion, amongst many others, that I am considering.

    853
    I am afraid that my consultations about 18 months ago did not reveal undiluted enthusiasm for shared schooling. However, have noticed renewed interest. I shall see what I can do to assess whether there is a basis for moving forward.
    Mr. David James: Will the Minister ensure that he is not deterred in any such negotiations by the hostility of the ever, I have noticed renewed interest. I Roman Catholic hierarchy? I speak as a Roman Catholic.
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I shall consider all contributions and make my judgment on the basis of them as I see them.
    Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware that before much progress can be made in this direction a number of entrenched positions will have to be abandoned, not least that of the Roman Catholic Church, which insists that the children of mixed marriages must be brought up as Roman Catholics?
    Mr. Moyle: That last point lies outside the scope of the original Question.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office have been ready to condemn the wide gap between the two communities in Northern Ireland and have repeated that condemnation as often as they can. Surely, by refusing to get rid of segregation in education, they are abdicating their responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. What we are seeking to do in Northern Ireland is no more than appertains in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is a desire for mixing between people of various religious persuasions, there are a number of school-organised out-of-school activities in which a great deal of mixing takes place.

    Assembly
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has made any further progress in reconciling conflicting views amongst political leaders in Northern Ireland regarding progress towards an elected parliament or assembly for the Province.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I told the House on 2nd July, I am always ready to entertain constructive and responsible ideas from those in Northern Ireland who are prepared to work together for Northern Ireland. I have played no part in the recent conversations between the SDLP and OUP, which I understand have been adjourned.
    I am ready to play a part at an appropriate time.
    Mr. Latham: Does the Secretary of State think that he has an energetic rôle to play here, or is he settling down for a long period of direct rule? If the latter, the question of Ulster representation here cannot be shelved indefinitely.
    Mr. Rees: It is not a matter of being energetic. A fool can be energetic, and it is easy to be foolish in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman would find if he went there. Therefore, it is a matter not of being energetic but of judging the situation.
    On the question of seats, I received a news release from the United Ulster Unionist Party on the talks. I read in it that I am to get a report. I do not think that I have yet received the report. The news release referred to being fully represented in all the democratic fora, and said that agreement had been reached. Immediately that news release was issued, the spokesman for the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, made it clear that the SDLP was not in favour of any extra representation in this House. So runs the problem that we have to face.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are gratified by the interest, as shown on the Order Paper, taken by hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain in the affairs of Northern Ireland and that we regard that as a welcome sign of the acceptance of the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which there are conflicting views on the form and desirability of devolution?
    Mr. Rees: I am glad that other right hon. and hon. Members are showing a

    855
    great interests in the wider issues in Northern Ireland. I think that is right.
    When in Northern Ireland I read that there are other problems of devolution in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether, in the absence of any immediate facilities for a Northern Ireland Assembly, my right lion Friend has any comment to make on the scrutiny by this Parliament of subordinate legislation applying to Northern Ireland? Does he not feel that with the likelihood of direct rule continuing, there ought to be a greater opportunity for elected representatives here to have that necessary degree of scrutiny?
    Mr. Rees: There is a problem here. I do not propose to go into the question of the technical nature of the orders. We have announced that we are prepared to make some changes, arising from our debates on Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of our agreement that there is little point in trying to hustle political progress towards another form of devolved government in Northern Ireland? In the meantime what steps is he taking to make direct rule less bureaucratic and more accessible to local opinion?
    Mr. Rees: I understand the problem about direct rule, but, as was the case with the previous Administration, Ministers who work with me in the Northern Ireland Office spend a great deal of time in all parts of Northern Ireland. I do not think there are any Ministers in any other Department who are as accessible to the people of an area as Northern Ireland Ministers are.

    Life Imprisonment
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what point in their sentences prisoners serving life imprisonment are deemed to have served half their term of imprisonment.
    Mr. Concannon: A sentence of life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence; one half of the term of imprisonment is therefore also indeterminate.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Absolutely impeccable logic.
    Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful to the Minister for setting me that insoluble
    856
    conundrum. Does he agree that the indeterminacy of the sentence and, therefore, by definition, of the half sentence, leaves open the question when a prisoner serving a life sentence would, or should, or can, be released? Will the Minister deal with this matter at greater length? Can he tell the House whether or not the half-sentence principle is being applied to people convicted in Northern Ireland and subsequently transferred to mainland prisons?
    Mr. Concannon: The cases of life-sentenced prisoners are reviewed periodically in consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. Since 1968 five life-sentenced prisoners have been released—two after seven years, two after eight years and one after 16 years. The half sentence, which my right hon. Friend announced on 16th February 1976, applies only to people in gaol in Northern Ireland. If they are transferred to Great Britain I assume that they come under the parôle system of Great Britain.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister say what the average length of a life sentence in Northern Ireland is?
    Mr. Concannon: Obviously I cannot say what the average length of a life sentence is, but what I have just said is that since 1968 only five life sentence prisoners have been released. We now have 132 prisoners serving life sentences and 28 young persons detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure. This is another of those conundrums referred to my my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).

    Homosexuality Law
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for reforming the law concerning homosexuality in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I told the House on 2nd July I have invited views, including those of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on the question of amending the law relating to homosexuality in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that reply, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is a gross disparity between the treatment of homosexuals in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of Great Britain? For the time

    857
    being, will he try to make the life of homosexuals in Northern Ireland no more uncomfortable than it is in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Rees: I understand the disparity and I think that I ought to listen to the views of the people in Northern Ireland and of the public representatives. I cannot say that this is the most important problem in their minds, but it exists. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I maintain a distance because I in no sense ought to interfere in those matters.
    Mr. Goodhart: What plans does the Secretary of State have to test ordinary public opinion in Northern Ireland on this and other social issues when a change in Northern Ireland legislation is contemplated?
    Mr. Rees: I have not decided on any particular method of doing that. I think there are means of finding out, but at the end of the day it will be a matter for this Parliament, as is the case with the situation in any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bradford: Is it not possible that in the case of homosexuality Great Britain could take a lead from the legislation that exists in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me, the answer is "No". I think that in this respect we are right and Northern Ireland is wrong.

    Belfast Transportation Review
    Mr. Fittasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement with regard to the progress of the Belfast transportation review.
    Mr. Concannon: The consultants' study of the Belfast Transportation Review is approaching completion. Six alternative strategies were reviewed in an interim report. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, in consultation with the Belfast City Council, chose three for further study. The consultants' draft final report has been received by the Department and preparations are at present being made for publication of the final report in the near future.
    Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister aware that in the absence of specific proposals emerging from this review on transportation there are many areas, lying vacant and neglected, particularly in the city of Belfast, which could be used for the provision of either homes or small and light industry? Is he also aware of a recent Press report to the effect that the transportation studies have cost the Government thousands and thousands of pounds and can he confirm or deny that the figures which have been quoted are correct?
    Mr. Concannon: I think the newspaper that my hon. Friend has referred to is the Andersonstown News. The report did not say "thousands" of pounds; it said "millions". In fact, £280,000 has been spent so far. It is another of those journals which tend slightly to exaggerate. None of the three strategies provides for an elevated urban motorway of the same standard as that contained in the original design. Two of the three strategies do include a proposed dual carriageway along the line of phase 1, linking the M1 and M2 to channel heavy traffic from the docks away from residential areas and the city centre.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister reconsider the advisability of proceeding with the motor road link at Whitehouse, to which I have already referred in a previous debate. Will he bear in mind that this is likely to cost over £3 million? Would that money not be better spent in other directions? For example, it could be used to avoid doing real damage to the economy of Northern Ireland if it were available for that purpose?
    Mr. Concannon: I wish somebody had taken note of the hon. Gentleman's views some time ago, because I think that money spent on roads in Northern Ireland would have been much better spent elsewhere, anyway. I shall certainly take note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Traffic Signs (Defacement)
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to prevent the display of posters and advertising material where they deface traffic and safety signs.
    Mr. Dunn: Posters fixed to traffic signs are taken down by staff of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment as soon as they can. The penalty for displaying an advertisement in contravention of current Northern Ireland regulations is a fine up to £100. Anyone who wilfully interferes with or damages a traffic sign is liable to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for three months, or both.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of the obvious inconvenience to the public and, more important, the implications of road safety, can my hon. Friend explain why those responsible for this fly-posting have not already been prosecuted?
    Mr. Dunn: In the first instance it is a matter for the police, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to make an appeal to the people concerned to end this irresponsible practice, which is very dangerous. If this appeal fails I shall consult my right hon. Friend and the police to see that a more effective enforcement of the law is brought about.
    Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the worst offenders in this respect is something called "Action Group"? It is an extraordinary thing that those who profess to be interested in the life and well-being of their fellow-citizens should deliberately endanger it by defacing necessary signs.
    Mr. Dunn: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

    Security
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the state of law and order.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security situation.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Violence has continued throughout July and there have been a number of recent terrorist incidents, some of them particularly brutal, in
    860
    which innocent civilians from all parts of the community have been killed or seriously injured. Fewer civilians have been killed than in previous months, but bombing attacks have continued at a higher level and substantial damage has been caused to property in Londonderry, Belfast and rural areas, notably in Castledawson and Kilrea.
    There has been an increase in shooting and bombing attacks against the security forces. Only last night three policemen were injured in a booby trap explosion in Lurgan; one of them is very seriously injured. I regret also that a member of the RUC Reserve was shot at an Army checkpoint near Bessbrook. The RUC is investigating both these incidents. Two members of the security forces have been killed by terrorists so far this month, and 33 injured.
    There have in the past fortnight been various disturbances among special category and remand prisoners, obviously designed to put pressure on the prison authorities. The Government's announced decisions on the future treatment of newly-convicted prisoners will not be changed.
    As I have told the House on many previous occasions, the way to fight terrorism and to maintain the rule of law is through the processes of the law. The security forces continue to meet the challenge of terrorism from whatever quarter it comes and wherever it occurs. So far this year 659 have been charged with terrorist crime, including 55 with murder, and 57 with attempted murder.
    I have signed an order excluding Mr. Rory O'Brady from the United Kingdom under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. He is the President of the Provisional Sinn Fein, but the exclusion is concerned with the individual and not with the organisation.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome what he said about the arrest of Mr. O'Brady, and that some of us think that perhaps it is a little belated? May I ask him something about the prisons where the disturbances took place, though it is not necessarily directly connected with the disturbances? Is he aware that he will have our full support in seeing through the decision to end special category status?
    Mr. Rees: I must make it clear that the decision whether Mr. O'Brady should be arrested was a matter not for me but for the police. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about prisons, because what matters in Northern Ireland is that people should realise that the men in the Maze Prison are there because they have been sentenced, not any act of mine. Those convicted after 1st March will serve their sentences in cells.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is growing anxiety about his plans to accelerate the granting of parôle later this year to some of the hardest men who are now in prison?
    Mr. Rees: It is not "later this year"; it has already happened. I announced the plans to the House earlier this year. In this part of the United Kingdom there is a parôle scheme. People have determinate sentences, and they come out of prison. That is a fact of life. I do not deny the problem. What proportion return to violence is another matter.
    Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments will be welcomed on the Government side of the House and more widely? Is he not entitled to be rather resentful about the recent remarks by an Opposition Member that there have been tea parties with men of violence? Would it not be better for the moderate profile usually exhibited on the Government side of the House to be maintained outside it?
    Mr. Rees: I did not notice the comment about tea parties. I have said before that the exchanges with Sinn Fein have not been anything like as frequent as many people appear to think. I am sure that there was a great advantage in them a year or more ago. I am not prepared to go into details, but I can say that there have been no talks since the early part of this year, and no talks are in prospect. Anyone who talks about talks is not talking about talks in which anyone associated with me is involved. Whether other people outside the Government machine are involved, on their own initiative, in talking to the Provisional Sinn Fein is not a matter for me. Only a few weeks ago I was approached by some-
    862
    one who claimed to carry a personal message from David O'Connell, threatening increased violence in Ireland if there were an early political agreement between the parties. I did not seek that meeting; I did not know the man from Adam. I hope that because I received a message in that way no one will say that I am arranging talks.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a large mass of arms held illegally within the Province? What new initiatives does he intend to take to have a more vigorous campaign to discover and recover those arms.
    Mr. Rees: This is a matter for the security forces. We talk about it a great deal. There are many illegal weapons in the Province, and finds are made from time to time. These arms are held by people across the divide. In order to do something about them we must have evidence showing where to look and where to dig. The security forces are looking the whole time, and they achieve much success.
    Mr. Fitt: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the massive wave of sympathy in Ireland that occurred because of the recent explosions—sympathy that did not come solely from the South or the North. It involved all the people of Ireland, who have shown their absolute repugnance for the men of violence.
    On the matter of the exclusion of Mr. O'Brady, it will be for the interest of the House and people in Ireland who are bitterly opposed to violence if my right hon. Friend can tell us definitely and distinctly that the reason for that exclusion order was that there were suspicions or evidence that Mr. O'Brady was directly involved in supporting men engaged in a campaign of violence.
    Mr. Rees: I realise that there is the wave of sympathy to which my hon. Friend referred. We are very grateful for the attendance of hon. Members, including an hon. Member from the Opposition Front Bench, at the funeral of a good friend of ours who was killed last week.
    With regard to Mr. O'Brady, the situation is quite clear. The Act says that

    863
    somebody shall be involved in violence if he
    "is or has been concerned (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
    That is what I have to take into account.
    Mr. Powell: In the matter of the prison disturbances and special category, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no less than Her Majesty's Official Opposition, my hon. Friends and myself are in total support of his policy on the ending of the special category; that, if anything, its termination should be accelerated; that there must be no question of his giving way; and that the more this is understood by those concerned the less avoidable damage and destruction there will be?
    Mr. Rees: We are extremely grateful for those words, which we strongly support. We shall not give way on the matter of special category, political status, of men being in compounds and doing as they like, as it were, of being in "the best terrorist training school in the world", and all the other words that can be used. These men have been properly sentenced for the most serious crimes and will serve their sentences in the proper fashion.
    Mr. Neave: In referring to the counterproductive talks with the Provisional Sinn Fein just now, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a great advantage in those talks. What was that advantage, and when was it apparent to the people of Northern Ireland, in view of the very heavy casualties of the past few days and months? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House before that these talks have not occurred since the beginning of this year? He has never said that before.
    Mr. Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read what I have been saying. I think that it was apparent to those living in Northern Ireland. I chose my words very carefully. I have said what I had to say on this matter. Eighteen months ago, when an organisation announced a ceasefire—not at our instigation—I should have been wrong if I had not found a means of discovering what it was about and giving in this House my words, as given by officials to that organisation. To
    864
    find a means of ending the violence would have been something that everybody should have been pleased about.
    Mr. Neave: Will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he was totally deluded about the ceasefire, that it has been a dreadful mistake, and that he has increased the dangers to the population of Northern Ireland by talking to people to whom he has given political credibility?
    Mr. Rees: I think that when the day comes for the facts to be known that will be seen not to be the case. I stand by what I did. I think that I was right to do it.

    Playgroup Personnel (Pay)
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the discussion with the Department of Manpower Services regarding the requested increase in wages for statutory and voluntary playgroup personnel in Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): Negotiations for the introduction of a common salary structure for pre-school playgroup staff were initiated in 1974 following the rationalisation of former local authority staff in Northern Ireland. Detailed proposals were under consideration in July last year, but agreement on their implementation had not been reached when the present phase of incomes policy was introduced on 11th July 1975. I regret therefore, that there is no scope for pay increases for this group beyond the £6 a week which they received with effect from 1st July 1976.
    Mr. Bradford: Whilst the playgroup personnel would want me to thank the Minister and his colleagues for their courtesy in receiving the deputation, that answer will be a great source of disappointment to them. Will he undertake to remunerate this section of personnel, which is making a great contribution to child care in Northern Ireland, as soon as the present phase of the pay policy ceases?
    Mr. Carter: My Department is not at all unsympathetic in this matter, but the hon. Member will appreciate that this group is subject to the current economic

    865
    policy and therefore I cannot give the undertaking that he seeks.

    Housing Executive (Subsidy)
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose and effect of the retrospective subsidy payable under Statutory Rule (N.I.) No. 34, article 11; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Under the provisions of Article 11 of the Housing Subsidy Order (Northern Ireland) 1976 the former Northern Ireland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning made special additional contributions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive of £14,742,420 in March 1976. The purpose and effect of these special statutory contributions was to reduce the estimated deficit of the Executive for the financial year 1975–76. The subsidy was not retrospective but paid in respect of the year 1975–76 only, after the passage of the relevant appropriation order.
    Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the necessity for a parliamentary Question such as this arises from the inadequate explanatory memorandum with which these Statutory Rules are often accompanied. Will he give attention to this, especially in view of the fact that the majority of these rules cannot be called in question in the House?
    Mr. Rees: I most certainly shall do that.

    Rates (Revaluation)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to alleviate the impact of rates on the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the impact of rates on the economy of Northern Iredand is no greater than that in other parts of the United Kingdom, I have no plans to alleviate it.
    Mr. Farr: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that there has not been a general increase in rates in Northern Ireland for 20 years? As a result, there has been a sharp increase, in some cases, from £800 to £10,000 a year, with the consequent effect that
    866
    15,000 jobs are likely to be lost? Will he look at this with a view to securing a phased increase?
    Mr. Rees: Revaluation merely brings the level up to date, and it should have been done a long time ago. We are only just catching up. A phased increase would mean taking money from other parts of my budget for Northern Ireland, and I cannot do that.
    Mr. Jim Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has sufficient brown trout and rainbow trout angling waters available in Northern Ireland to meet both local and tourist angling needs.
    Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir. The census of angling on the Department's waters shows that there is adequate capacity on its rainbow trout and brown trout waters except in the Belfast area, where the demand exceeds the supply of public angling available.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he say what plans his Department has for the future stocking of these waters?
    Mr. Dunn: The Department keeps under continual review the stocking of these waters and listens to representations made by angling organisations. I am sure that if additional waters are required, that will be considered at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Teaching Hospitals (Mid-Ulster)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teaching hospitals are located in the Mid-Ulster constituency.
    Mr. Concannon: None for undergraduate medical training. Eleven postgraduate training posts are filled in hospitals in the constituency.
    Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware of the shortage of medical and para-medical staff in western Northern Ireland? Will he use his good offices and influence in the Government to try to alleviate that position, particularly as it effects consultant staff, although it also applies to ordinary medical staff?
    Mr. Concannon: The provision of hospital services is not governed by my Department or the Government. Postgraduate medical training is governed by the medical profession—by the royal colleges in the specialties. The hon. Gentleman's question proves the necessity for the report on the development of hospital services, and that is one thing that we shall have to examine.

    Electricity Services (Headquarters)
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of building the proposed new area headquarters for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at Londonderry.
    Mr. Moyle: This is, strictly, a matter for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. However, I am prepared to tell the hon. Member that detailed plans for such a new headquarters have not yet been proposed, so it is not possible to give a firm estimate of cost.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that consumers in my constituency are happy with the present arrangement and wish to retain it? Is he aware that they believe that the proposed new headquarters would be a change for the sake of change, and that it would make services remote from the people and the movement of staff economically unreasonable?
    Mr. Moyle: The present arrangements are not conducive to the highest standards of administrative efficiency. There will be an opportunity to look at the matter again.

    MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister if he intends to make a ministerial broadcast on Her Majesty's Government's economic policy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on 27th July.
    Mr. Lawson: Since this is clearly an appropriate time, will the Prime Minister explain, in the light of the profound understanding of economics that he displayed during his period as Chancellor,
    868
    precisely how it is that the £1,000 million increase in employers' national insurance contributions releases resources for manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's magnanimous tribute, even though it is belated by about 10 years. I accept it in the spirit in which he made it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an explanation of the increases in national insurance contributions and I have nothing to add to it.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does the Prime Minister agree that profits are rising strongly this year and the indications are that they will rise more strongly next year, and that, therefore, now is the time to invest? An integral part of our industrial strategy involves planning agreements. When shall we see the fruits of that?
    The Prime Minister: The Price Code gives substantial advantages to industry, and this is certainly an opportunity that managers and employers should grasp. It is an opportunity given to them by the stability they now enjoy as a result of the social contract agreed yesterday. There is a growing acceptance of the idea of planning agreements, especially among larger companies, and the Government intend to speed up those agreements as far as they can.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Who and how many are the parties to this so-called contract, and what proportion of the electorate do they represent?
    The Prime Minister: Without going into arithmetical proportions, over the last three years the social contract has enabled us to substantially reduce the incidence of strikes. In consequence, I no longer get the same complaints about the interruption of flow of materials into and out of factories, and that also helps exports. In all those and many other circumstances, the contract between the Government, the Labour Party and the trade unions has been of great value to the country, and it might be a little better if the Opposition sometimes acknowledged that.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the CBI that British industry has a unique contribution to make because of the advantages of

    869
    having the lowest level of industrial disputes for nearly 10 years and an undervalued exchange rate, which should give it enormous investment incentives? Does he agree that there is evidence of a strong growth in world markets and that it is high time British industry began to invest more, to get production up and unemployment down?
    The Prime Minister: It was indicative of the Opposition's attitude that they jeered through that recital. It is in the national interest that there should now be substantial new investment in a particularly favourable combination of circumstances. There has never been a better opportunity for export-led growth than we have at present—[Interruption.] Why do Opposition Members want to jeer at their country every day? I do not understand it. We have never disguised the difficulties that lie ahead. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will assist in getting across the combination of circumstances that now exists, which will give us an opportunity, in the next two or three years, to prepare for the 1980s—or are the Opposition frightened that we shall succeed?
    Mrs. Thatcher: In an earlier reply the Prime Minister stressed how much importance he attaches to securing the agreement of the TUC. Doubtless that applies to the proposals for public expenditure cuts. Does he attach equal importance to securing a clear decision, on a Government motion, on his public expenditure cuts, before the House rises?
    The Prime Minister: An announcement will shortly be made about the business for next week—[Hon. Members: "When?"] In due course.
    Sir G. Howe: You are wriggling.
    The Prime Minister: I would not wriggle in front of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). He is the last one in front of whom I would wriggle. We have announced our policy, and if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge it, she is entitled to do so.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I was challenging the Prime Minister to say whether he would dare to table a Government motion on public expenditure cuts and put it to the House. I take it from his reply that the answer is "No".
    The Prime Minister: An announcement will be made about this matter. If anybody wishes to challenge the policy, he will be free to do so. The Opposition have the time to challenge that policy—let us see what they do with it. I understood from some remarks by the Opposition spokesman that there was some modified support for our policy. If the Opposition are satisfied with that policy why should we table a motion?

    CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will now disband the CPRS.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: May we be sure that the CPRS has not become something of a fifth wheel on the coach of Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I think it has not. I find the papers and submissions prepared by the CPRS extremely valuable as a commentary on the work of Departments. I think that its existence is certainly justified.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister consider the whole question of scientific advice available to the Government, since this aspect of policy appears to have been put into cold storage, if not actually destroyed? Would it not be better to spend the money involved in the CPRS on ensuring that the Government are given much better central scientific advice?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The organisation of scientific advice and its application to the work of Departments have concerned me. We reached the conclusion that it was a matter of organisation, but I do not know that there is a perfect answer. It would be better to appoint a chief scientist in each Department, geared into the machine of the Department, rather than to have one central chief scientist who would be responsible for operating over the whole area of activity. It is also intended—although agreement has not yet been reached—to recruit a scientist to the CPRS itself.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that if there are to be cuts in public expenditure, many Labour Members will expect them to come at

    871
    the top as well as at the bottom? It is felt that there are elements of the work of the CPRS, particularly in its rôle in reviewing the area of foreign affairs, in which one could save public expenditure by getting rid of those elements completely.
    The Prime Minister: That is a very prejudiced point of view. There are only 17 members of the CPRS. We shall not save much of the £1,000 million on them. In regard to their work on the Foreign Office review, I thought, when I examined the situation in another capacity, that they could make a valuable contribution. It has become fashionable to attack particular organs of government, but I have seen nothing of the work of the CPRS that leads me to believe that it has fallen away in quality. As one who has had the opportunity of seeing that body at work, I believe that it makes a valuable contribution.
    Mr. David Steel: Since the nuclear industry has not developed long-term methods for dealing with nuclear waste, and since there are wide safety and security implications in the wider use of uranium and plutonium, will the Prime Minister say whether the CPRS is involved in decision-making about the future nuclear power station programme of the Government, or is this being left to the Department of Energy? Are we to have more public debate on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: It is open to the CPRS to submit any paper it wishes on this nuclear aspect or on any other. Without notice, I cannot say whether it has already done so.

    FOOD POLICY
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Social Services, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in matters concerning national food policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hooky: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is busy subsidising certain foods, such as sugar and butter, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that these may
    872
    be positively dangerous foods if taken in excessive quantities? Will he try to bring into closer consultation those concerned with agricultural prices and medical services in formulating future food policy?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that there is already a great deal of medical consultation. On the whole, I believe that people will go on eating what they like without paying over-much attention to the medical consequences. We must of course have certain limitations. I believe that there is already cross-fertilisation between the two Departments to make sure that medical consequences are taken into account.
    Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of food distribution will be increased if the Dock Work Regulation Bill is passed and implemented? Will he seriously consider dropping the Bill, since the measure is not popular on either side of the House, in the country, or among the trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that something should be done between the Departments about the common agricultural policy? Although there is a subsidy on butter and, indeed, a butter mountain, the Common Market countries are now envisaging a levy on margarine. Consequently, the consumer feels that the system is not working in his best interests. Will the Prime Minister take steps to end the CAP as early as possible?
    The Prime Minister: From the very beginning the Government, and our predecessors, have had considerable views about the CAP and its impact on consumers. I have asked—and have informed the other Heads of Government on this matter—for a full review of the CAP and its impact and about the requirements that should be made before the next price review takes place in the spring. Clearly it does not work out satisfactorily for us, and one or two proposals from the Commission on these matters seem to be plain daft.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Foreign Office, because between them they

    873
    have made a dreadful mess of the fishing policy—or does such a policy exist at all?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) continues to paddle his own canoe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or his trawler."] No, he would not paddle a trawler; he would sail it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be satisfied with the progress being made by my right hon. Friend on fishing policy, in ensuring proper safeguards for our fishermen in future.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend about the need for a review of the CAP, but will he accept that when people have not enough money to buy butter, it is nonsense to increase the price of margarine to such an extent that it is impossible for them to buy that commodity either? Do not some of his friends in Brussels realise that if they lowered the price of dairy produce they might be astonished to see how much of that produce would be bought in the shops?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I can add to my previous rather explosive comment. As I said, it is one of the things that I regard as rather daft.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister say whether he regards the food gap as being as important as the energy gap? May we see some evidence from the Government that they wish to close the food gap?
    The Prime Minister: I have, certainly since the Yom Kippur war, been very clear about the serious impact of the energy gap. The food gap is serious, but I have a feeling that there is a great deal of undeveloped potential for producing food. In some cases it is a matter of distribution.

CHINA (EARTHQUAKE)
Mr. Heath(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are ready to offer medical supplies and equipment to the Government of the People's Republic of China to help them to deal with the problems arising out of what is now apparently a major and tragic earthquake disaster.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): Yes, Sir. The Government are, of course, ready to do all that they can to help. Our Embassy in Peking was instructed yesterday to ask the Chinese authorities whether there is any assistance we can offer, for example, in the form of emergency and medical supplies.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a message of condolence. I am sure that the whole House would wish to endorse his expression of sympathy to the Chinese Government and the Chinese people.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that the whole House and the people of Britain will welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that the Government have already offered assistance in this matter and will join with the Foreign Secretary and Government in their expressions of sympathy.
Does the Foreign Secretary know whether any British citizens or visitors were in the locality of the earthquake when it occurred?
Mr. Crosland: As far as I know at present, all British subjects, certainly in Peking and, as far as can be ascertained, elsewhere in China, are reported safe and well. There has certainly been no suggestion of any British casualties in Peking itself.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend also consider having talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy with a view to offering assistance to the mining industry in this important mining town, which will have suffered greatly in the disaster, which will have caused great damage to the Chinese economy?
Mr. Crosland: I shall certainly consider that.
Mr. Churchill: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement of the action he has already taken, but will he in addition consider sending a Hercules aircraft with medical supplies and a medical team, and also not rule out sending a unit of the Royal Engineers, if such would be acceptable, to help in the reconstruction of water supplies?
Mr. Crosland: I am willing to consider any of these suggestions, but we first have to wait and see what answer

875
we get from the Chinese Government to the offer we have made of any help that would be of use to them. In past cases of assistance of this kind the Chinese Government have been very self-contained in their attitude and have certainly not wanted very demonstrative offers of help from the West. But we have asked them what they want and we shall consider it in the light of their reply.

DIVISION (SICK MEMBERS)
Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your assistance concerning the arrangements which might be made today in respect of three Labour Members who are seriously ill and who are travelling to the House and will be in the House this evening, although—[Interruption.] I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of saying anything on this subject against barracking. Three Members of the House are desperately ill and will be in the House in that condition tonight in order to vote in the Division at 11 p.m. I understand—this has nothing to do with you, Mr. Speaker—that the usual arrangements for pairing seriously ill Members have not been afforded—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to come to the part of his question on which I can help and leave the general issue of pairing, which, as he rightly, says, is none of my business. We have a lot of other work before us.
Mr. George Cunningham: I am coming to that. [Interruption.] There are three Members who might die in this House tonight—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members restrain themselves until the hon. Gentleman has indicated to me what I can do to help? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point.
Mr. George Cunningham: These three Members will be in the House tonight[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They will be in the House tonight because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They will be in the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members—[Interruption.] Order. Valuable time of the House is being
876
wasted. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring his point of order to a conclusion by indicating to me what he thinks I can do.
Mr. Cunningham: The three hon. Members will be in House tonight because they have—[Interruption.] I spy Strangers in the Gallery. Right, if that is what you want—
Notice taken that Strangers were present. Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Snape and Mr. Bates were appointed Tellers for the Noes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I expect him to come to his point of order immediately.
Mr. George Cunningham: The position is that there are three Members who are seriously ill and who have been refused facilities, as a result of the decision of the Leader of the Opposition. Something serious may happen tonight as a result of that decision—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I greatly deprecate points of order being used for argument.
Later—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heifer. He has been trying to catch my eye for a long time.
Mr. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have always regarded you as one of the most humane and Christian Members of the House, although you are not of my persuasion.
I am sure that you will accept my point of order when you realise that a number of hon. Members, who could be put into very serious medical conditions, are being brought in today from very long distances.

877
What powers do you have, for instance, to convene an urgent meeting of Mr. Speaker's Conference, to deal with this problem? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the Government's fault."] I do not want to lose my temper with hon. Members opposite, although I have come to the conclusion that some of them do not give a damn about the possibility of hon. Members losing their lives.
I raise this point of order because this problem has been with us for at least as long as I have been a Member of this House. What powers do you have, Mr. Speaker, to solve this problem in a humane and Christian manner in order to avoid hon. Members having to be brought here in a serious medical condition that could lead to loss of life? Some hon. Members do not seem concerned about that, but I would be worried whether the hon. Member concerned was a Conservative, a Liberal or from any other party.
Could you convene an emergency meeting of Mr. Speaker's Conference or take any other action to deal with this fantastically difficult, serious and inhumane situation which has arisen from the actions of the Iron Lady opposite?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Clearly there is nothing at all that I can do this day. Hon. Members who are coming here are now probably on their way.
Mr. George Cunningham: On the heads of the Opposition be it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member had a good innings a little while ago. I have listened to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) with great sympathy as, I am sure, have many hon. Members on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame the Government Chief Whip."] Order. I shall now move on to business questions. I call Mrs. Thatcher.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a limit to how long points of order can go on when there is a lot of business to be done.
Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Welsh temperament very well. I hope
878
that the hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye on points of order will do me and the House the favour of making them as brief as possible.
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you satisfied that there is adequate medical provision in the House to deal with people who are seriously sick and who are being brought in because of the gross insensitivity of the Conservative Party?
Mr. Speaker: I can understand points of order about our sick colleagues, but everyone knows that to go on attributing blame is not a point of order.
Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a small but practical point which I hope will be heard by the Leader of the House. There are from time to time extra health hazards in this House and we have very good coverage from the two hospitals concerned—St. Thomas's and Westminster. I am simply asking that whenever there is an actual health hazard there should be medical coverage here which does not come from other sources.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the House that I shall make the most thorough inquiries to see that adequate facilities to look after our sick colleagues are present.
Mr. Peyton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some very damaging things have been said—
Mr. George Cunningham: Quite right, too.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stop interrupting from a sedentary position.
Mr. Peyton: There are therefore two very short points that I think that I should make. First, it is the responsibility of the Government Chief Whip whom he brings here and whom he does not on any occasion—
Mr. George Cunningham: The right hon. Lady will not pair.
Mr. Peyton: Secondly, it would be a very strange situation if, on a highly controversial Bill, my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip were to order any Member of his own party to stay out of the Lobby.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is clear that I was doing my utmost in no way to be involved in the arguments other than to express concern about our sick colleagues. I shall make inquiries about the matter.
Later—
Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there appear to be several hon. Members who are too sick to come to vote tonight, may I suggest that you invite the Leader of the House to postpone today's business which is controversial, so that we could proceed to discuss instead the National Heath Service (Vocational Training) Bill, which is also a starred Order of the Day, since there may be some inequality due to the lists of sickness tonight?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that completes that round.

MEMBER (TELEPHONE CALL)
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Litterick to speak on a point of order.
Mr. Litterick rose—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: I can take only one point of order at a time.
Mr. Litterick: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Litterick on a point of order.
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, formally to take note of the fact that yesterday afternoon a telephone call that I made from one of the corridor telephones of this building to a member of the public was intercepted by a third party.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members do not listen they will not know whose telephone it was.
Mr. Litterick: I think that the House should take notice, as this is a serious matter. The events that occurred yesterday affect every Member of Parliament as they suggest the possibility—I put it
880
no stronger than that—that the telephone system of this building is being monitored, with or without the authorisation of the Executive, or that it is possible for the telephone system to be intercepted and monitored by someone else. Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, to set in hand an investigation on behalf of the House and independently of any other investigations being made by the Executive.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has raised an important question. I think that a statement may be forthcoming from the Government Front Bench. Otherwise I am prepared to make inquiries into the matter.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Further that that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may help the House if I make a brief intervention.
The statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) on 17th November 1966 and by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on 16th July 1970 about the tapping of hon. Members' telephones apply also to telephones in the Palace of Westminster used by hon. Members.
There can therefore be no justification for the suspicions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). I can only speculate on the incident referred to by my hon. Friend. I assume that his conversation took place on an accidentally crossed line—which is not, I fear, outside the experience of any of us—and that the third party took it upon himself to join in.
Mr. Litterick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reasonable for the Home Secretary to refer to previous incidents. However, the House should also bear in mind that it was discovered in the past that the Executive did this. There have been previous cases. Notwithstanding the assurances that were given by previous Prime Ministers, time has elapsed, and the House has no way of knowing whether the situation has changed. Therefore I insist that an investigation should be put in hand by you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I regard myself as the custodian, in part at least, of the rights of hon. Members. Of course I shall look at the question. But we had a forthright reply from the Home Office.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the debate resumes I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry will clear up an area in respect of which he undoubtedly misled the House last night on the finding of an industrial tribunal inside Wales. Having obtained a transcript of the tribunal's proceedings, I feel that it is vitally important to point out that his statement contained a mis-statement of fact, to the effect that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited had fired workers unfairly for being pro-nationalisation. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter He made an emotional speech on the matter yesterday, which was clearly untrue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of Ministers' speeches is not for me.
Later—
Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in your capacity as defender of the interests of minorities and Back Benchers. Yesterday evening, a vote was taken on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill at six o'clock and a further vote will be taken on the same Bill tonight between eight o'clock and nine o'clock. In his speech winding up that debate yesterday the Secretary of State quoted from the South Wales Echo a story which was only partially true. In today's edition of the paper, the story is printed in full, which gives a completely different picture from that given by the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, how can arrangements be made to allow the Minister to make a further statement to put the record straight for the House?
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Member has put the record straight. What takes place in a debate is settled on the spot by the result of the Division. I accept the results given by the Tellers.
882
I think that we had better leave that matter until the debate later.
Mr. Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of brevity, could I, through you, say that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has done anything but put the record straight? The record was straight on what my right hon. Friend quoted yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: That shows the danger of saying any thing.

SUB JUDICE RULE
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday I was asked to give a ruling. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) made a considered submission to me on how the Chair should exercise its discretion in permitting reference to be made to matters that are sub judice before the civil courts, in the light of the resolution of the House on the Question of 28th June 1972. I now want to reply to the important issues that he raised.
In the first place, I draw attention to the fact that the resolution of 1972 is prefaced by the phrase
"subject to the discretion of the Chair".
This governs all that follows, and places upon me the responsibility of exercising my judgment in each particular case. The remainder of the resolution constitutes guidance by the House as to how it wishes me to exercise my discretion in certain classes of case. Of course I pay very close attention to that guidance.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the case with which he is particularly concerned I have considered whether the ministerial decision was one that could be challenged only on grounds of misdirection or of bad faith, and also whether the issues of national importance set out in the resolution of 1972 applied. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to seek to define those issues more closely than the resolution itself does, although the hon. Member invited me to do so.
I should like to say a word about the sub judice rule in general. It is, as the hon. Member quoted from the 1972 report,
"the fundamental responsibility of Parliament to be the supreme inquest of the nation with

883
the overall responsibility to discuss anything it likes."
It is to enable them to perform that function that hon. Members enjoy absolute privilege to speak in this Chamber without any court being able to question them.
It is also an important principle that Parliament shall not influence, or seem to be seeking to influence, the administration of justice. The sub judice rule is therefore a self-denying ordinance instituted by the House in order to protect that principle. The fact that newspapers sometimes feel free to comment on issues that are still sub judice, as the hon. Member remarked, is another matter, since the courts may deal with them for contempt, and their views do not carry with them the weight of having been delivered in Parliament.
Having made those general remarks, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I recognise that the resolution of 1972 constituted a deliberate relaxation by the House of the sub judice rule in the area of public policy that it does go wider than the Industrial Relations Act; and that I shall exercise my discretion in favour of freer debate in every case in which I consider that I may properly do so.
The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made a final point about the freedom of Back Benchers to make submissions to me about the exercise of my discretion in particular cases. I assure them that I am always prepared to consider submissions—provided that they do not anticipate my decision by commenting on the matter that is awaiting judicial decision or contain comments that are out of order on other grounds.
In this particular case the hon. Member's object on Tuesday was to submit to me arguments that this particular issue did not fall within our rule on sub judice matters. Had he put forward his argument purely on the basis of the resolutions of the House and past precedents, as indeed he did yesterday, I would certainly have been prepared to hear him out. It was solely because, in my view, he began by reflecting on the courts that I intervened.
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for that ruling, which has clarified the
884
matter. The 1972 resolution mentioned, among other things, that you should take into account "the essentials of life". I asked you to rule on that, but I understand that you have not felt able to say what it means, just as previous Leaders of the House have not felt able to say what it means. I submit that it can cover social issues, such as the row we had earlier this week, which is continuing, as well as economic and national defence issues.
I very much hope that you would be willing to see the 1972 resolution in that wider context, which includes social issues, when using your proper discretion on this matter in future.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member very much.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance now, particularly since we shall shortly be dealing with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
In the past few weeks the representative of a public relations firm called International News Services has been using the House of Commons and Palace of Westminster facilities. I want to seek your confirmation that such a public relations firm can have no advantages just because it has two parliamentary advisers, but that its representative can be considered only as a member of the public and that if he wishes to go, for example, to the Terrace, the Strangers' Bar or other accessible parts, he must have the express authority of an hon. Member and be accompanied by an hon. Member.
In addition, will you confirm that such a public relations firm's representative is not allowed to use the telephones which are scattered around the building? The person to whom I am referring was seen using a police telephone.
This is a serious matter because many hon. Members are open to pressure and wish at some stage to withdraw from such pressure and to seek the haven of the Palace of Westminster for reflection. It seems quite untoward that an hon. Member can be open to hounding by a public relations representative who seems to treat the Palace of Westminster as though he owns it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised an important matter. I shall have inquiries made and will say something to the House in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND AUGUST—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate on public expenditure, on an Opposition motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY 3RD AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Bail Bill [Lords] and of the Rating (Charity Shops) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Police Bill and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Motion on financial assistance to British Leyland.
Motion on sound broadcasting the proceedings of the House.
WEDNESDAY 4TH AUGUST—Second Reading of the Drought Bill [Lords], until about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
THURSDAY 5TH AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Drought Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 6TH AUGUST—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 11th October.
Mrs. Thatcher: Why did the Leader of the House refuse a specific request for a debate on public expenditure cuts in Government time on a Government motion, bearing in mind the fact that the last public expenditure White Paper was not approved by the House, that summer is a difficult time for sterling and that the last time that the Prime Minister referred to the support he expected to get for public expenditure cuts in this House he pointed out on 8th July that it would be
886
on Labour votes that he would depend for any policies that he placed before the House? Why did the Leader of the House refuse to have a Government motion on public expenditure next week?
Mr. Foot: I expected a vote of thanks from the right hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain. I imagined that the right hon. Lady wanted an occasion on which she would be able to put down a motion and to express her views to the House on these matters without any obstruction or intrusion. That is what has been arranged. I am sure that the debate which we shall have on Monday will enable all sides of the House to put their views clearly both in the debate and in the Lobby.
Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the fact that we are debating the Drought Bill next week in no way absolves the Government and the Opposition from providing time to debate the regular water shortage in Eastern England and proposals for a national water grid and the storage of river water in the Wash?
Mr. Foot: We cannot debate that next week, although I have no doubt that references to the matter will certainly be in order during discussion of the Bill.
Mr. Molyneaux: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to move the motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall move that motion on Thursday.
Mr. John Mendelson: As we are now in the last week before the recess, can my right hon. Friend give us a definite date when the Secretary of State for Employment will make his promised statement on jobs for school leavers and alleviating the position of other unemployed people?
Mr. Foot: I hope that it will be on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I hope that it will be Tuesday.
Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement next week on devolution? If so, will it include the Government's plans for the regions of England?
Mr. Foot: A statement will probably be made—in fact, almost certainly—on

887
Tuesday. It will be in the form of a White Paper, but there will be a short statement to the House as well. It will contain a reference to the subject which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it will cover other matters which were left, to be settled later in the previous White Paper.
Mr. Peyton: May I raise first of all a question about last week's business? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in future be able to arrange business on Fridays so that it does not go on into the night, with great inconvenience to our long-suffering staff.
Returning to this week's business, the right hon. Gentleman has just told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the motion for Monday is her opportunity to have a debate without obstruction or intrusion. I take it that those very clear words mean that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will not be putting down an amendment to the Opposition motion on Monday, bearing in mind that there can be no precedent for a Government not to have £2,000 million-worth of measures debated in their own time.
Mr. Foot: On the first question, I certainly appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the inconvenience for the House as a whole and especially for the servants of the House, who have had very heavy burdens placed upon them over recent weeks. I certainly appreciate what he says about the high desirability of avoiding late debates on a Friday. We shall do the very best that we can to avoid that. However, it was the case that last Friday, particularly in view of the important Northern Ireland business that had to be discussed, the House had to sit until late.
On the second matter, the right hon. Gentleman says that I have referred to no obstruction or intrusion and he is assuming that we would not put down an amendment to the motion tabled by the Opposition. I should think that very likely that is so, but we must see what the motion is before we decide the matter. It would be very unwise for anyone to say that he would not put down an amendment before he had actually seen the motion. However, certainly if we can accommodate the Opposition on
888
that aspect of the matter as well, we shall do our best to do so.
As for the last question, all the proposals that have been put forward by the Government will be subject to the normal parliamentary processes at the normal parliamentary times. What the House will have an opportunity of doing on Monday is to debate the matter on a motion, which I should have thought suitable for the Opposition even if it turns out badly for them in the end.
Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the genuine distress on both sides of the house about the problem of sick Members coming in. Without getting involved in the argument, is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider putting down a motion, perhaps next week, for a free vote, when the House would be asked to allow those who are sick to vote by proxy? [Interruption.] I said a motion on the Floor of the House on a free vote, so that all hon. Members will have the opportunity to say what they want to say, so that on the basis of producing a medical certificate, adequately signed, Members can vote when they are sick. Does my right hon. Friend not know that such a motion would receive the overwhelming support of the majority of the House?
Mr. Foot: I certainly listened to the views expressed earlier. What my right hon. Friend has suggested is one approach to the problem. If we could discover another solution to it, we should be very glad to do that. I certainly think that there ought to be some proper system for pairing Members who are sick. We would certainly be in favour of it. However, if the House would like to have a motion on the subject, we would consider that, too.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Public Lending Right Bill passed all its stages in the House of Lords in the early part of this year, that it began its Second Reading in this House in May, that it is supported by both Front Benches and that there have been three bites at the Second Reading cherry. As this is not therefore entirely unrepresentative, what assurance can he give us on the subject? Will he

889
approach the Opposition officially with a view to ensuring—as I know that he personally wishes—that the Bill is secured and is on the statute book by the end of the Session?
Mr. Foot: It is not a question of the views of the official Opposition on the subject. I think that the Oppositon support the Bill. Certainly it is the Government's desire that the Bill should proceed. Some hon. Members in other parts of the House take a different view. It is our wish that the Bill should proceed to the statute book. It has passed through another place, and we hope that when the House meets after the recess we shall be able to carry the Bill through and put it on the statute book.
Sir Bernard Braine: The Leader of the House will recall that a little earlier the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs told us of a very welcome approach to the Chinese authorities in response to my right hon. Friend's question. He will know that the essence of help in these situations is speed. Can he give us an undertaking that the Foreign Secretary will report to the House next week the result of any approaches to Peking?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure about a report to the House, but I shall convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that, in saying what he has said, he was speaking for everyone in the House, and that we would want the maximum assistance to be given with the maximum speed. I am sure that that is the desire in all parts of the House, following the question that has been raised.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his undivided attention to the fact that during the recess inshore fishermen will continue to go to sea in a state of total uncertainty about the future of their industry? Is he ready to advise the Foreign Office that it must if necessary declare unilaterally a 200-mile limit and within that be ready to be firm with the EEC that we need a 50-mile exclusive limit, because nothing else will satisfy inshore fishermen?
Mr. Foot: I am always eager to advise the Foreign Office, and very often that
890
is of the highest assistance to it. However, I cannot assure the hon. Lady that I shall give my undivided attention to this matter. Other matters may crop up. However, I shall certainly bear in mind what she has said.
Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 22nd July amounted to a mini-Budget, with substantial increases in taxation as well as expenditure cuts? In the light of this, is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the precedent that is being set by refusing to allow the House the opportunity of discussing a mini-Budget in Government time?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed on every aspect of the question. We are not refusing the House time to discuss the matter.
Mr. Lawson: Government time.
Mr. Foot: We are not refusing the House the opportunity to discuss these matters in Government time. None of these measures will be put into operation until it has been discussed in the House and until the House has had an opportunity to vote upon it.
Mr. Jay: Do the Government intend to lay before the House next week the proposed Order on poultry meat?
Mr. Foot: I think that the regulations are now complete and I believe that my hon. Friend will be presenting them to the House next week, but there will still be plenty of time when we return after the recess for discussion of the matter in the House.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Mr. Speaker: With regard to the business for next week, for the debate on Wednesday 4th August on Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9 o'clock on the morning of Tuesday 3rd August their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.

891
The debate on Second Reading of this Bill is, to quote page 745 of "Erskine May",
"commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy."
It covers, for example, all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 266 and 276, and the revised and supplementary Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers 483 and 484.
It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 3rd August.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
    Clause 19

      VESTING IN BRITISH AEROSPACE OR BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS OF SECURITIES OF SCHEDULED COMPANIES
      4.18 p.m.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 21, line 3, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a company named in Schedule 2, of whose property a receiver has been appointed, the Corporation shall purchase from the receiver its existing assets at a value to be determined by agreement between the Corporation and the receiver as on the date of the coming into operation of this Act'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
      No. 221, in page 21, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
      No. 222, in Schedule 2, page 75, line 5, at end insert 'Drypool Group Ltd.'.
      Mr. McNamara: We have spent a long time discussing other parochial matters in this Bill. We have had a major row on a constitutional issue concerning one local company—namely, Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. I make no apology for raising a matter of vital concern not only immediately to the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) but to the general prosperity and well-being of industry generally on North Humberside and of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in particular.
      We had a short debate on this topic in Committee. In that debate I rehearsed the arguments why my hon. Friends and I felt that the Drypool Group should be back within the Bill. Originally, when we fought an election on Humberside, we fought it for the nationalisation of the

      893
      aircraft and shipbuilding industries. We fought it for the nationalisation of Brough and Drypool.
      In the first Bill, which was published on 30th April 1975, the Drypool Group was included in the provisions for nationalisation. However, following the change at the Department of Industry, when the present Secretary of State replaced my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Energy, a second Bill was published, from which the Dry-pool Group was excluded.
      We have to ask why the Drypool Group was excluded. The answer is that it went bankrupt and brought in a receiver. However, if that alone were the case for not nationalising or taking into public ownership any industry, there would have been no help given to Rolls-Royce, to Chrysler, or to many other nationalised industries that have been taken into public ownership.
      The company went bankrupt. Immediately the announcement was made, my hon. Friends and I spent a considerable time lobbying Ministers, who expressed great sympathy for the situation, but did nothing other than to say that they would not now nationalise Drypool and that it would be far better for what was left of the group to be taken into private ownership and sold off by the receiver rather than be taken into public ownership.
      I must say that that augurs well for those other parts of the shipbuilding industry that are said to be in a very precarious position. Some of them would not exist if they did not have the benefit of help from the Government, which was denied to Drypool and other shipbuilding industries on Humberside.
      We were then left with a situation in which the Government recommended that the companies should not be nationalised. Supported by some of my hon. Friends, I tried in Committee to get that position reversed. I was not successful, and since that time a number of the companies within the Drypool Group have been sold off to private industry, including the Selby Yard and the Beverley Yard.
      Therefore, we are left with what, in a parochial sense, is the core of the whole problem for me and my hon.
      894
      Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East—in other words, the yards in our constituencies, which still employ about 300 men, to whom we gave an undertaking, both on the hustings and since, that we would press for the nationalisation of their yards, which undertaking we are carrying out now. I can assure the House that this is no part of any sham exercise.
      We have the situation, theerfore, that parts of the Drypool Group have been sold off. Other parts have not been sold off. Though I regret to have to admit it, obviously it would be unsatisfactory if we tried to bring back into the ambit of public ownership those parts which have been sold off already to private industry. I concede that point, though I regret having to do so.
      But there are the parts which are left, which are in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. Those are parts that have not yet been sold off. Therefore the amendment has two objectives. It seeks to meet the changed situation of the Drypool Group, and it seeks to meet the situation in terms of the major argument which the Minister of State advanced in Committee that because of the period of time taken as the average over which compensation should be paid to shareholders, it would involve the payment of compensation to shareholders in a bankrupt company.
      On that occasion I put it to the Minister that, if that was the substance of his argument against accepting my amendment, surely it was not beyond the wit of man, though perhaps it was beyond that of the Government, to find a way round the difficulty, as had been shown to be possible by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister and was dealing with Rolls-Royce.
      In my view, we could say that in the case of a company which was bankrupt the Government would merely pay the value of its assets. Therefore, the amendment seeks to say that where a receiver has been appointed—as has happened in this case—the corporation shall purchase from the receiver its existing assets held by the receiver at the time of the coming into operation of the Act at a value to be determined by agreement between the corporation and the receiver.

      895
      That is what the amendment says. It says nothing that could conflict either with public policy or with what is contained in the Bill. It contains nothing to conflict with public policy because we are not confiscating. We are paying compensation, and paying compensation for fixed assets.
      I put it to my hon. Friend that he has an opportunity between now and the coming into operation of the Bill either to ensure that the jobs of the men concerned are protected, and that the industry is protected on Humberside, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, by being sold to some private industry—which I should find difficult to accept from a Labour Government—or to say that, from the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, the assets will be taken over by the new corporation.
      Mr. Tom King: As I understand Amendment No. 220, the hon. Gentleman is proposing that the corporation shall purchase from the receiver the assets of the company at an agreed fair market valuation. Does he think it would be right that the same principle should be applied to all the companies being acquired and that in each case the assets should be purchased at a fair price?
      Mr. McNamara: Every company in bankruptcy which is taken over—[Interruption.] This company is bankrupt. I should hate to make the Bill a hybrid. I am dealing with only one class of company at a time. If a company is bankrupt, let us pay for the assets. We want the creditors to be treated honourably. I am after no quick buck and no confiscation. Let the creditors be treated honourably.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for enabling me to make this point, because it drives home that the hon. Gentleman supports my view that we should compensate the creditors fairly on the face value of the company's assets.
      4.30 p.m.
      My amendment will still give the Government time to do what was originally envisaged when the whole exercise of nationalisation was first thought of. It was envisaged that on Humberside, in an
      896
      area of very high unemployment and with few opoprtunities of skilled work for school leavers and where we had had a number of body blows to our economy, for which the Government had done very little to compensate—the closures of Thorn Electrics in my constituency and of Imperial Typewriters in East Hull, the threatened close-down of Humber St. Andrews, partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend—here was an opportunity for the Government to say to Humberside, "We appreciate your need for skilled work and here on Humberside we can build a small boats division of the new shipbuilding corporation." That is what we were after. It is still possible. There are still being taken into public ownership the shipyards at Goole. There are still being taken into public ownership the ship repairing facilities of Humber Grading.
      It is still possible for the Government to have a strong and viable nationalised shipbuilding sector on Humberside based upon the yards that are there. At this stage my right hon. Friend the Minister could say that what this party undertook as part of its policy, and what was its policy until the publication of this Bill, to the extent that it can be honoured, will be honoured and that he will take these parts of the industry into public ownership.

      ROYAL ASSENT
      Mr. Sneaker: Before I call the next hon. Member I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

      1. Finance Act 1976

      2. Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act 1976

      3. Protection of Birds (Amendment) Act 1976

      4. Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976

      5. River Medway (Flood Relief) Act 1976

      6. Suffolk Coastal District Council Act 1976

      7. Yorkshire Water Authority (River Derwent) Act 1976

      AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. James Johnson: We have listened to an accurate and excellent contribution by my colleague the Member for Kingston-uponHull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Speaking as a Hull Member and Chairman of the Yorkshire Group of Labour MPs, I can endorse the facts of economic life as he has stated them. During Committee six months ago this firm was literally in a shambles and it was in the hands of Mr. Smith, an excellent receiver.
      In this context I should also like to confirm the state of our economy. We in Hull and North Humberside have a continuing malaise and there is a curious dichotomy in our day-to-day life in that, on the one hand, we can boast of being the gateway to Europe with enormous prospects and benefits from the Common Market, with our motorways opening up—the M62 and the M18 to the West—and, on the other hand, when I talk to full-time union officials of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, the General and Municipal Workers, the Transport and General Workers, and the Boilermakers Society, men who are in the docks or employed in this industry, I find gloom and despondency about the future. All of them condemn the Government for what, for want of a better term, I can only call their nonchalance towards us on the Humber.
      From time to time deputations descend on the Government in Whitehall to see Ministers on Bills such as this and the Fisheries Bill. We go back with no joy and no booty whatever. We are getting body blows like these and the Icelandic Agreement constantly, so our male unemployment is at least 10 per cent. and may be as high as 10·6 per cent. Candidly, my concern as a constituency Member is about jobs for my own people. To be quite blunt, I want jobs in whatever shape or form I can get them, whether in the public sector or in a mixed economy.
      Five or six months ago shipbuilding affairs were catastrophic. I wish to quote and endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon
      898
      Hull, Central in Standing Committee six months ago:
      "But there is evidence that if something positive is not done, if we do not nationalise the yards, the important ship repairing and shipbuilding industries on Humberside are to be lost—for ever."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24th February 1976; c. 1158.]
      That was six months ago and time has marched on. As my hon. Friend said initially, Selby and Beverley are now back in business.
      I understand from our city development committee, though here I may be corrected, that our yard in Hull may also have been the subject of discussion, certain people wishing to take it over. That is the current position, but that is not what the amendment is saying. As my hon. Friend was careful to point out, it talks of the present situation when there should be an agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of coming into operation of the Bill. I shall listen with extreme care to what the Minister says in reply to this debate about the terms on which he views a possible transaction along the lines envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central. How much compensation does he envisage? Does this make sense to my hon. Friends, to those in Hull, to the Minister and other hon. Members?
      We have talked of bankruptcy and have used such terms as "hybridity" and "hybridisation", though I wonder whether there is such a word. I want a clear definition of what is meant by all this. I want the Minister to state the implications to the work force and to the Government.
      In addition to feeling it my duty as a constituency Member to find out what the Minister intends to do, I also made an effort to find out the views of the unions in Hull on this subject. I have discussed it locally and I find intense scepticism about Government action. One union official, for example, felt that if the Government are to place orders, it would be better for this firm to be nationalised, since the Government could then be expected to place orders within its own public sector.
      Offsetting this I found another view, which I emphasised earlier, the feeling that Humberside, is the last place to get

      899
      orders. We are last in the queue, unfortunately, unlike Scotland and Wales, about which we get argument and discussion about devolution, nationalism, chauvinism, and similar movements. In short, on Humberside, there is deep resentment by the unions, the work force, the businessmen and councillors about the way in which we tend to be placed not only down the queue, but even behind the corner. It is the view of the chairman of my city development committee that if we had been in Scotland six months ago, we should not have been put down as many people feel we were.
      The message I wish to give to the Minister is that I shall listen carefully and weigh his words to me. At this moment I have no intention of voting against the Government. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say. I have never yet voted against the Government. It is not usually my intention to do so and I was not sent here to do so, but I shall listen carefully and weigh up all that he has to say.
      Mr. John Prescott: I am not one to prolong discussion on a matter that is clearly very much the concern of the Hull area, but the important principles involved affect other areas, and matters brought up on this issue will be of some consequence to a number of constituencies when the reorganisation and rationalisation of the ship repairing industry takes place. One is not unsympathetic to the problems that will face ship building and ship repairing but perhaps this aspect has been overestimated in considering the problems of a shipbuilding area with some ship repair and not taking into account the contribution that can come from small ship development taking place in the area.
      It is clear that the Labour Government attempted to include the Drypool group in the First nationalisation Bill that it introduced after the first election in 1974. We believe that the group should have been included in this new Bill, even though some parts of it have been sold off to the private sector.
      I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the arguments that we have deployed to justify the cause of nationalisation in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. We use those same arguments now—inadequate investment,
      900
      employment productivity, bad management. All these things contributed to the collapse of the Drypool group. The events were somewhat precipitated. If the liquidity problem with which this company is faced had occurred 12 months later, it would have been included in the Bill. This is no reason to leave it out. The fundamental arguments for naionalisation are still sound, apply in this case, and have directly contributed to the collapse of Drypool.
      I have looked at the arguments put forward by the Government to justify excluding the Drypool group, but I find them very difficult to explain to my constituents. The Government have argued different points on different occasions. First, they have claimed that the company is now bankrupt and lacks liquidity to finance ships which it had on order, and this kind of money—between £1,500,000 and £2 million—is not made available under the Industry Act. Therefore, the company was allowed to go to the wall. I know that is rather simplifying the argument, but basically it is one of bankruptcy. This is not an argument against taking over the industry; the bankruptcy has been precipitated by the financial events of the time.
      Secondly, the Government have given the reason why the group has had no new orders for two years. Very few shipyards in Britain or round the world are in the fortunate position of receiving orders in the last few years because there have been considerable difficulties in this field. But there is evidence that business is picking up. Our problem is no different from that of other yards.
      What sticks in the workers' throats in my area when they are told that they are not being profitable or making enough money with new orders is the fact that our orders have been going to places like Aberdeen, which are being subsidised. It comes a bit thick from the Government responsible for the regional employment premium to give it to our major competitors and to say that our yards are not profitable. They are playing off other yards in other parts of the country against Humberside. When jobs are denied to us, they go instead to other yards, which are being given subsidies and which are our major competitors. This is not an argument that I accept with a great deal of conviction.

      901
      Thirdly, the Government claim that our yards are making a loss on each order. That also sticks in the throat. Very few yards anywhere in the world are making money on any orders. That is why Governments are falling over themselves to give money to shipowners to order ships in their own yards. Maritime Fruit Carriers is a classic example of that.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when speaking on 27th July in the debate on the Belfast yards, referred to losses on orders. He said:
      "The £60 million that we then provided to the end of 1978 was to cover prospective losses. Every ship being made is made at a loss. The £60 million is to cover losses in Harland and Wolff."—[Official Report, 27th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 393.]
      Every ship being built is built at a loss, yet this is one of the points being made against our yards being nationalised.
      4.45 p.m.
      The point that is painfully clear to me is that the political consequences of allowing Harland and Wolff and Clydebank to go to the wall are far greater than those of allowing Humberside to go. In Humberside there is not enough political pull to make the Government realise the facts about unemployment in our area.
      These arguments are hardly ones that a constituency Member can take back to his constituents. The Government have not given proper consideration to the contribution that Humberside can make to small ship development. At the moment Humberside takes 11 per cent. of small ship traffic into its ports. One of the reasons why we have the Dock Work Regulation Bill is the technical developments in recent years.
      The Government's basic argument in letters and correspondence from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Industry is that the best formula is to allow these yards to go to the wall. They claim that the yards should be sold off separately to the private yards, as this is the best way of providing jobs. Against that background, the analysis is that somehow private capital will go in, buy the yards, and provide jobs, thus solving our problems. These firms have been given Government money to help them buy the
      902
      yards, and the money given has been greater in total than the amount asked for by the company to sustain it as a group.
      We are left with unemployment in Hull, and jobs have been found in the Conservative areas, which is hardly likely to be attractive from our political point of view. We Labour Members in Hull are not convinced by the arguments put forward and we do not think that those arguments are borne out by the facts. It is necessary and urgent that the Government should carry out their election commitment—the one on which we fought the election—and include Dry-pool yards in the Bill. The Government should bear in mind the ever-increasing rate of unemployment in our areas. At the moment it is 15,000 in Hull alone, or 10 per cent. of the working population.
      The Department of Industry has been very much involved in decisions in Hull in the last few years. We had the situation last year in which Imperial Typewriters collapsed. This company could have been saved by the Department, had it been prepared to take on the multinational and bring in import controls on typewriters. We have also faced the rapid decline of the fishing industry and the consequences of that decline. In addition, the effect of VAT on caravans has hit Humberside more than most areas. The Government should recognise that we have a special unemployment problem, which is not as massive as that of Belfast or the Clyde, but is exactly the same in terms of percentages.
      On Humberside, we are also faced with 13 per cent. of youths being unemployed in a largely unskilled area—more so than the national average. Opportunities for apprenticeships and training have declined in recent years. Four years ago 120 apprenticeships a year were provided in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. In 1974 there were 84 provided. In 1975 this number was reduced to 75, of which 30 were Government-sponsored. This year, there are less than 50 apprenticeships, of which 30 are Government-sponsored. It seems that the whole of the Humberside shipbuilding and ship repairing industries have opted out of this responsibility. Only the Goole shipyard, which is part of the Swan Hunter

      903
      group, has held its own and is taking apprentices and training youngsters. The State should make a larger contribution to that end, and I hope that the Government will look at this problem.
      The Department have a report, which has not yet been made public, which shows that small ships have a future in terms of growth and development, and that Humberside is the best site for that. It is a pity that a nationalised industry has not chosen to build at Brigham & Cowan, which was one of the yards taken over from Court Line, for which the Government must take the credit. They should now build on that sector and include the Drypool group, taking in Brigham & Cowan to further the development of the building and repair of small ships.
      If I am told that there are no orders I must tell my hon. Friend that the evidence of the last few months from the companies which are considering taking over the yards is that there are plenty of orders and that work is available. That is why these companies are in the market for some of the yards. If they can work under private ownership, why can they not work under nationalisation?
      We politicians know that at times we fight elections and make promises which we are not able to carry out. We confess to the electorate and take the consequences. But there are promises about which we feel keenly, and the promise to nationalise Drypool comes into that category. We fought an election on nationalisation. I believe that it provides the answer to this industry's problems. We put the proposal in our manifestos and in our Bills. To withdraw now, on grounds that do not stand up to examination, is totally unacceptable.
      I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have two of the yards in our constituencies, and we appreciate what will be the consequences of unemployment there. Those consequences are unacceptable to us. If the Government cannot implement the policy on which we fought an election, it is up to the individual Member to attempt to get that policy through. The Government, we believe, must accept our amendment, or something like it. In Hull the Depart-
      904
      ment of Industry has a bad name. It has almost become the Department of Unemployment, and the electorate there talk about having to become Yorkshire nationalists before they get anything done. I reject this view but demand that the amendment be accepted by the Government.
      The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): If anyone is a Yorkshire nationalist it is I, since I was born in Yorkshire and educated there. My family still lives there. I shall be going back there in a few days.
      Mr. Tom King: Lucky old Yorkshire.
      Mr. Kaufman: Yes, it is lucky. It has my hon. Friends who represent Hull, and it has me, but it does not have the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
      I appreciate the case that my hon. Friends have been advancing for a considerable time. If it were possible consistently and sensibly to accept their amendments I should be glad to do so. However, accepting them would not only do my hon. Friends and their constituents no good; it would do their constituents and the Labour Government positive harm. My hon. Friends are not happy about what has developed, but I hope that they will understand that the situation that has developed cannot be reversed, because time has gone by and changes have taken place.
      Since my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised the matter in Committee the amendments have been overtaken by events. The receiver has sold the Selby yard to United Towing Limited, the Hull-based tug owning company. As well as building vessels for other owners, the Selby yard will be able to fulfil orders for its new owners' fleet. Whitby Shipyard Ltd. has entered into a contract with the receiver for the purchase of the Beverley yard. Until he has completed the remaining vessel at Beverley, which he contracted to complete, Whitby Shipyard and the receiver will occupy the establishment side by side. The receiver has also sold Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull to the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company, while he is continuing to seek purchasers for other facilities.
      Mr. Prescott: This is an important point, on which the Minister has his facts wrong. The purchase of the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company has not reached the stage of an exchange of contracts. For a number of reasons the company has withheld, and at this stage the sale is not completed.
      Mr. Kaufman: My information is as I have put it. If my hon. Friend's information turns out to be right I shall seek a method of correcting what I have said. In the meantime, I must stand on the information that I am supplied with.
      Mr. McNamara: Since my hon. Friend will be speaking for several minutes, will he arrange for a telephone call to be made so that the question can be clarified before the debate concludes?
      Mr. Kaufman: We are seeking to do that, and I shall acknowledge the fact if I am wrong.
      The receiver is continuing to seek purchasers for the other facilities. In the Government's view the group was not viable as a whole and we believe that employment could best be preserved by allowing the receiver to find purchasers for the various facilities. His success so far bears out this decision.
      That is the position about the disposal of the yards, but the amendments that my hon. Friends have proposed are not only unacceptable but positively damaging, because of the compensation arrangements. If the amendments were carried the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd would have to be compensated fully on the basis set out in the Bill. The shareholders would receive compensation equal to the estimated value of their shares in the reference period September 1973 to February 1974. At that time there seemed no reason to doubt the viability of the group. The managing director of the company wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry on 19th August 1974 asking to be excused nationalisation on the grounds of the efficiency of the company. If the managing director's letter had turned out to be an accurate reflection of the prospects of the company during the reference period—it is not possible to say whether that is so or not—the share-
      906
      holders would do very well indeed out of my hon. Friends' amendments. The amendments would not do much good to the workers in Hull, however.
      The investigations that took place following the appointment of a reciever last year have demonstrated to the Government's satisfaction that the yards in the group stand by far the best chance of survival as viable concerns if they are run as separate units rather than remaining under the umbrella of a single company.
      Mr. McNamara: I cannot see how the compensation clauses bear upon this issue, in view of the drafting of the amendment. My hon. Friend is putting forward the argument that we heard in Committee. I have taken advice on how to meet the problem he mentions—a problem that has arisen since the Selby yard was sold. I cannot understand why, if we buy assets from the receiver at existing value under an agreement between the receiver and British Shipbuilders, we should have to pay the shareholders. The amendment provides that we should buy assets, not pay compensation.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry, but the situation is as I have described it. My hon. Friend may well have received advice, but it does not bear upon the problem that I have described.
      5.0 p.m.
      Many of the assets of the Drypool Group Ltd. have been sold to buyers or are under negotiation. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to the payment of compensation. We have to pay compensation on the basis of the value of the group during the reference period, regardless of the amendment. My hon. Friend knows that, because of the assets that have been sold off, if we vest the Dry-pool Group Ltd. in the corporation the underlying assets will be very few. We shall be paying the full compensation value for the shares in the company because, if a company is named in a schedule—that is what my hon. Friend seeks to do—it follows that the shareholders of the company must receive compensation. That is how the Bill stands. Therefore, the device which my hon. Friend is seeking to adopt to circumvent the situation which I describe would not be successful.

      907
      The financial affect of Amendment No. 220 would be disastrous. I must make clear that there is nothing whatever in the amendment which in any way removes the need to pay full compensation under the existing provisions of the Bill to the shareholders of the Drypool Group Ltd. The amendment will impose an additional cost to the corporation because it requires it to purchase from the receiver the assets of the group at a value to be determined by agreement between the corporation and the receiver as on the date of the coming into operation of the Bill. That would not be a substitute liability; it would be an additional financial liability on the corporation. It would be paying a great deal for hardly any assets.
      The practical effect for the group, if it were inserted in the Bill, would be on vesting date to repay all the creditors of the group their outstanding debts. This would be an additional expense to the corporation. My hon. Friend would be vesting hardly anything but paying out three times over to the shareholders and creditors of a bankrupt company to whom the Government are not liable under the Bill. My hon. Friend would not be doing anything for his constituents but would be doing a great deal for the shareholders and creditors.
      The overall effect of my hon. Friend's amendment would be to increase the commencing capital debt of the British Shipbuilders Corporation by the amount of the compensation that would have to be paid to the shareholders of a company that is now quite worthless. It would also saddle the corporation with the cost of buying back the assets from the receiver and, in addition, paying off the creditors. It would be very good indeed for them, very bad for the finances of the corporation and not do an atom of good for the constituents of my hon. Friend who is speaking in favour of the amendment.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: I hesitate to intervene in a private argument between the Minister of State and his hon. Friend, but he keeps on implying that none of his hon. Friend's constituents could possibly benefit if compensation were paid to the shareholders. How can he assume that none of the hon. Member's constituents is a shareholder of the group?
      Mr. Kaufman: I accept that the speculative population of Kingston upon Hull is not so numerous as that of Havant and Waterloo. I accept also that it is conceivable that the odd person in Hull might be a shareholder in Drypool, but my hon. Friends are not here speaking for the shareholders. That is not the purpose of their amendment. Its purpose is to try to do something for the shipyard workers in their constituencies. My hon Friends will not achieve anything in that direction by the amendment, but they will benefit other people whom they are in no way seeking to help who would be directly helped by the amendments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about the problem of unemployment in Humberside. That is a different problem, and a serious one. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was so negative about the work of the Department of Industry there. As he will know from close acquaintance with the situation, although it is distressing in many ways, a number of initiatives have been taken that are achieving certain results. My hon. Friend was fair in saying that Hull is not a development area. On the other hand, it is an intermediate area and thereby receives many benefits. Regional development grants at 20 per cent. are available. Selective financial assistance is available for new investment projects. The area has benefited a great deal in recent years from advance factory building and it has a reasonably well-diversified industrial base. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) pointed out that communications had been improved following the opening of the M62.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: May I ask for clarification to assist the Minisster's hon. Friend? Does the hon. Gentleman reckon that unemployment at the end of the year will be lower or higher than it is now?
      Mr. Kaufman: It is impossible for me to make that forecast. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) is sitting where his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) usually sits, and the right hon. Member for Sidcup when he sat on the Front Bench always refused to make forecasts of that kind. Once again, the right hon. Member for Worcester, is repudiating his right hon. Friend and his attitudes.
      Mr. Peter Walker: May I ask the Minister a question of fact? Is unemployment in the area higher or lower now than it was when he took office?
      Mr. Kaufman: Of course it is higher. It is higher because of the policies of his then right hon. Friend Lord Barber, which he so happily espouses and of which he is now probably one of the few exponents in the House.
      Hull has an important rôle to play in the offshore oil market. Several firms are already working on offshore-related contracts. The area is benefiting from three important projects under the Accelerated Projects Scheme introduced by the Government. They are a major new pharmaceutical factory by Reckitt and Coleman, the Lindsey oil refinery, and BP Chemicals' new acetic acid plant. These projects will consolidate Humberside's already strong position in the chemical and petrochemical industries.
      Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman is being complacent.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am not being as complacent as the right hon. Gentleman was when he told us that his plan to run down the British Steel Corporation would create hundreds of thousands of extra jobs, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State humiliated him. That was one of the greatest humiliations that even the right hon. Gentleman suffered in the House.
      Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Minister consider that the Government's failure to do anything about steel modernisation, so that Port Talbot and Redcar will not be producing steel next year at cheaper prices for export, is to the advantage or disadvantage of the British economy?
      Mr. Kaufman: I hope that you will allow me to answer that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the right hon. Gentleman's question is in order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Yes, the Chair will allow it. After that, perhaps we may get back to the question under discussion.
      Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman is out of touch now, otherwise he would know that in the three years since the Government came to office the investment programme under the modernisa-
      910
      tion scheme has reached £1,400 million—£300 million in the first year, £500 million in the second year and £600 million in the third year. That is a great deal better than the disgraceful interference with the activities of the British Steel Corporation and the Joint Steering Group by the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and all the rest of their fatuous incompetence.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that honour on both sides is now satisfied. May we return to the amendment?
      Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Member for Worcester should not have drifted in at this point.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Have mercy on him.
      Mr. Kaufman: I now have the information that has been requested. Perhaps I should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Worcester for intervening and allowing time for it to be obtained. Negotiations with the Yorkshire Dry Dock Company Limited for Nos. 1 and 2 dry docks in Hull are proceeding. The company is already using facilities for repair work and will continue to do so.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Oh.
      Mr. Kaufman: I said that if I were wrong I should admit it. I am not like the hon. Gentleman, who never admits anything.
      As for the need to provide jobs, offers of selective financial assistance of about £3·2 million had been made up to 31st March of this year for 35 projects in the Hull area, involving capital expenditure of £20 million and the creation of over 2,000 new jobs, with a further 1,000 safeguarded. That is what we are doing to help employment in Hull. I do not say that it is everything that needs to be done, but it is a considerable achievement. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
      Although the amendment is well intentioned, it would not do what my hon. Friends want. It would not achieve the various things that they wish to bring about.
      Mr. Tom King: I intervene only briefly. The Minister of State has explained to those representing Hull constituencies that there are appalling difficulties involved in offering compensation and that it would be impossible to prevent the creditors or shareholders of the previous group from receiving additional payments.
      The Hull Members will now realise why we consider the present payment terms to be so ludicrous and the whole system totally inadequate. They have found the other side of the problem—namely, that payments for compensation are unlinked with reality. The Minister of State has explained to them that the Government cannot pay compensation for what is now as they will have to pay for what was in terms of share prices in 1973–74. Situations have changed and not only in respect of Drypool Group Ltd. A quite different situation now exists, but the Minister of State has said that he cannot do anything about it and that it would be necessary to pay on the basis of a previous situation. This is a problem that will have to be faced when dealing with other companies.
      A Press report was issued on Government assistance and the funds that they are giving to help the companies they are taking over. It said that assurances were given that the Selby yard would remain outside the nationalised shipbuilding industry, and that the company had received from the Government an undertaking that there would be adequate protection for it against unfair competition and any disadvantage caused by operating outside the public sector. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State what form those undertakings took and whether they are available generally to the British shipbuilding industry.
      Mr. Kaufman: A Press statement was issued, which I shall make available to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to paraphrase it as it was a carefully phrased statement. I believe that he has not reflected it accurately. Therefore, it would be as well if I procure a copy for him.
      Yesterday Opposition Members were critical of the practice of reading extracts from newspapers, but I now have the report of the tribunal, which is even more devastating than the Press report that I read to the House. However, I shall
      912
      make the Press statement available to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). As for assurances about fair trading, they are contained in the new clause which the House agreed. There is no special assurance apart from the assurance of fair trading that we inserted into the Bill, stemming from the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
      Mr. James Johnson: My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of the amendment being passed. Has he made any estimate of the compensation that would be involved? Is it possible to make an estimate?
      Mr. Kaufman: It would have to be negotiated. That is one of the problems.
      Mr. Prescott: It would not be any more than if we had nationalised them in the past.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who confirmed the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I made, namely, that although negotiations are going on for Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2, the dry docks, which do not involve either of the refit docks, we understand that contracts have not yet been exchanged and that the matter is still subject to considerable discussion. Perhaps the most important discussions are taking place tomorrow. There is doubt about the whole situation.
      Even if my hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 in my constituency, he will not have dealt with the situation in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The dry fitting dock is not included. That will mean the loss of a couple of hundred jobs come October. My hon. Friend has not really met the point. Nor has he mentioned the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. East made about training, apprenticeships and the supply of skilled work. He has also failed to meet the amendment. He has spoken long and eloquently about compensation without mentioning any figures.

      913
      We took careful advice upstairs about the amendment. If the worst happened from my hon. Friend's point of view and the best from mine and the amendment were to be accepted, the situation would be no worse than when the White Paper and the first Bill were published. Money would still have to be paid. We would still have to pay the money that we would have been prepared to pay had the companies been strong at that time and come within the ambit of the second Bill.
      In the face of this sudden favour that private industry has with my right hon. Friends, especially small shipyards, if the amendment goes through, the negotiations take place and we get rid of Yorkshire No. 1 and No. 2 and solve the problem of the refit docks, the clause will become another small part of shipbuilding history—namely, a preparation by constituency members for a contingency that never arose. If we are to have the confidence that my hon. Friend has that the receiver will be able to sell off the yards, this little matter could well pass into oblivion as an attempt made by Members to protect the interests of their constituents, but big brother Government saying that they knew better. If it should not happen like that, at least we shall have tried to do our best for our constituents and met the contingency, should it arise, of the Government's hopes not being met.
      I do not want to dwell too long on the points made by my hon. Friend about the help that the Government have given to Humberside. Who are we to complain about the assistance that has come in our direction and maintained a few jobs? However, it did not maintain the jobs at Thorn or at Humber St. Andrews, or Imperial Typewriters or the fishing industry.
      In defence of the Government and of my hon. Friends, I say that the biggest run-down in employment will be in the fishing industry and in private employment. The Conservative Government negotiated our present weakness regarding fishing by giving Common Market countries the right to take fish right up to our beaches up to 1981. Any gains that later Labour Governments may obtain will result from their strength in negotiations, not from any position of strength that we have been left by the
      914
      Conservative Government. That is an aside.
      Mr. Tom King: I understand and appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we are working under a guillotine. The hon. Gentleman asked for the leave of the House, to which we did not object. One Opposition Member objecting would have debarred the hon. Gentleman from speaking again. We are to have the closure on an important debate at 6 o'clock. I understand and appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and concern for his constituents, but I ask him to bear that matter in mind.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has the right of reply, because he moved the amendment.
      Mr. McNamara: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to be courteous to the House when I adopted the usual Committee procedure of asking for leave to speak again.
      The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will recall that I sat through the Committee stage and spoke on only three occasions, which took considerably less time than he had for the dribble that he has spoken on this Bill. I shall defend my constituents, my interests and my philosophy under the rules of the House as long as I like. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to tell me to curtail my speeches when I have sat through the dribble that he has spoken time and again, wasting the time of the House and forcing the guillotine upon us, because of his attitude and that of his stupid supporters. So just you belt up. I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not wish to become involved in this discussion.
      Mr. McNamara: I come to my final point. Having vented my spleen upon the Opposition, it is with regret that I tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I shall have to divide the House on this amendment. I do so with regret, because I always feel sorry when a Labour Government let down my constituents. This is contrary to what we promised them at the hustings, in our

      915
      manifesto and in personal undertakings. Having made a promise at the hustings and since, my hon. Friend and I feel bound by personal commitment to divide the House on this amendment.

      Division No. 297.]

      AYES

      [5.22 p.m.

      Ashton, Joe

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Lambie, David

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lee John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

      Sillars, James

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Litterick, Tom

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Loyden, Eddie

      Swain, Thomas

      Edge, Geoff

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Flannery, Martin

      Madden, Max

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Ovenden, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Parry, Robert

      Mr. James Johnson and

      Kerr, Russell

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Mr. John Prescott.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Deakins, Eric

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Allaun, Frank

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Archer, Peter

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Doig, Peter

      Janner, Greville

      Ashley, Jack

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dunn, James A.

      John, Brynmor

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Bates, Alf

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bean, R. E.

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Beith, A. J.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bishop, E. S.

      English, Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ennals, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Kelley, Richard

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Evans,loan (Aberdare)

      Kerr, Russell

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lamond, James

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Bradley, Tom

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Luard, Evan

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Ford, Ben

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Forrester, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Buchanan, Richard

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Freud, Clement

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Cant, R. B.

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Carmichael, Neil

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Carter, Ray

      Golding, John

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gould, Bryan

      Mallalleu, J. p. w.

      Cartwright, John

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marks, Kenneth

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marquand, David

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      Hatton, Frank

      Mendelson, John

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Millan, Bruce

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Cronin, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Moonman, Eric

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cryer, Bob

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Huckfield, Les

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Newens, Stanley

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 248.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Owen, Dr David

      Selby, Harry

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Padley, Walter

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Pardoe, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Waker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Park, George

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Watkins, David

      Parker, John

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Watkinson, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Weetch, Ken

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Weitzman, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Small, William

      Wellbeloved, James

      Penhaligon, David

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Perry, Ernest

      Snape, Peter

      White, James (Pollok)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Whitlock, William

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Radice, Giles

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Stoddart, David

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Stott, Roger

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Woodall, Alec

      Roper, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rose, Paul B.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle ot Wight)

      Tomlinson, John

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Torney, Tom

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Sandelson, Neville

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 20

      VESTING IN ACQUIRED COMPANY OF CERTAIN ASSETS OF PRIVATELY-OWNED COMPANIES IN SAME GROUP
      The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 21, line 29, after 'condition', insert:
      'for the purposes of this section'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Government Amendments Nos. 40 to 123 inclusive and No. 324.
      Mr. Huckfield: Before discussing the amendments to Clause 20, which deals with the acquisition of appurtenant assets and liabilities of parent companies, I should like to say a word about the contingent liabilities of British Aerospace, to which I was hoping to refer on Clause 11, which, unfortunately, was not reached because of the timetable. I raise the matter now because the appurtenant asset liabilities may include contingent liabilities of the kind to which I am referring.
      It is our understanding that the companies which will vest in British Aerospace have large contingent liabilities related to indemnities given to United Kingdom banks in respect of advance payments by export customers. We do not, in advance of the passage of the Bill, know the details of these liabilities, but they are likely to be substantial in total in relation to the financing limit of £250 million in the Bill. The limits
      918
      included in the Bill do not include provisions for these contingent liabilities crystallising.
      In the unlikely event of one of these contingent liabilities crystallising, there will be an immediate increase in the indebtedness of British Aerospace, which will ultimately be met either by an increase in borrowing from the banks or by the provision of further Government finance. If such an increase exceeded the sums available to British Aerospace at that time under the existing financing limits, the Government would forthwith seek the authority of Parliament for an increase in the limits to meet the situation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the house 1 propose to read out the Government amendments in the form in which they have been printed. Should I be challenged at any point on any of these amendments, I shall then stop and propose the question.
      Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say for your convenience that the Opposition are prepared to accept Government amendments down to No. 324 without their being read out?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I must read out the numbers. I shall do so very quickly.
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 21, line 32, at end insert:
      for the purposes of this section'.
      No. 41, in page 21, line 45, leave out reference' and insert 'references'.
      No. 42, in page 22, line 1, leave out 'a reference' and insert 'references'.
      No. 43, in page 22, line 13, leave out 'For the purposes of' and insert 'In'.
      No. 44, in page 22, line 15, leave out from beginning to '"associated' in line 23.
      No. 45, in page 22, line 28, at end add:
      'and "privately owned company" means a company whose securities do not vest, and which is not a subsidiary of a company whose securities vest, in either of the Corporations by virtue of this Part of this Act'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

    Clause 21

      CERTAIN LOANS FROM ASSOCIATED PERSONS TO BE TREATED AS SECURITIES
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 22, line 32, leave out
      'a person associated with the acquired company'
      and insert:
      'an associated person'.
      No. 47, in page 22, line 39, leave out 'associated with the company' and insert 'an associated person'.
      No. 48, in page 22, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert:
      ',assuming the debtor not to be the subsidiary of any company, to be such as to require the issue to the lender by the debtor of securities within the meaning of section 19(5) above,'.
      No. 49, in page 22, line 44, leave out '12' and insert '9'.
      No. 50, in page 23, line 3, leave out from 'treated' to end of line 4 and insert
      'as a security of the acquired company for the purposes of vesting and compensation'.
      No. 51, in page 23, line 4, at end insert:
      '(1A) Subject to subsection (3A) below, where a notice is served under subsection (1) above, no person—

      (a) shall be entitled to exercise any right to repayment of the debt in question, or

      (b) shall be subject to any obligation to repay it.'.

      No. 52, in page 23, line 5, leave out from 'Where' to 'served' in line 6 and insert:
      'such a notice is served, the person on whom it is'.
      No. 53, in page 23, line 7, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.
      No. 54, in page 23, line 16, leave out from 'partly' to 'they' in line 18 and insert:
      'as a security of the acquired company for the purposes of vesting and compensation'.
      No. 55, in page 23, line 20, at end insert:
      '(3A) To the extent that, by reason of the revocation or amendment of a notice by virtue of subsection (3) above, a debt does not fall to be treated as a security of an acquired company, subsection (1A) above shall cease to apply to it on the date when the notice is revoked or amended.'.
      No. 56, in page 23, line 38, leave out 'applies' and insert 'has effect'.
      No. 57, in page 24, line 33, leave out subsection (8).
      No. 58, in page 25, line 1, leave out subsection (9).—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

    Clause 23

      CONTROL OF DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 25, line 42, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.
      No. 60 in page 26, line 19, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.
      No. 61, in page 26, line 30, leave out '12' and insert '9'.
      No. 62, in page 26, line 33, leave out 'and, subject to subsection (4) below, if' and insert '(3A) If'.
      No. 63, in page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 64, in page 27, line 32, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert 'the safeguarding date'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

    Clause 24

      PERMITTED DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 28, line 12, after 'company', insert
      'other than cumulative loan stock,'.
      No. 66, in page 28, line 17, after 'loans insert—
      '(aa) in the case of cumulative loan stock, payments of interest at the minimum rate required to prevent any interest being carried over for subsequent payment;'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 26

      POWER TO ACQUIRE SECURITIES OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPANIES
      Amendments made: No. 67, in page 31 line 31, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
      No. 68, in page 32, line 12, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State may also serve a notice of acquisition on a company, at any time before the relevant vesting date or within the period of three months beginning on that date, if it appears to him—

      (a) that the whole of the equity share capital of the company is held by or on behalf of the Crown, and

      (b) that it has as a subsidiary an acquired company falling within Part I of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to this Act.'.

      No. 69, in page 32, line 14, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.
      No. 70, in page 32, line 17, after '(1)', insert 'or (2A)'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 27

      REMOVAL OF COMPANY FROM COMPANIES TO BE ACQUIRED
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 33, line 19, leave out
      'that one of the relevant conditions is fulfilled with respect'
      and insert
      ,in relation'.
      No. 72, in page 33, line 22, after 'company', insert—

      '(a) that one of the conditions specified in subsection (2) below is fulfilled, or

      (b) that both the conditions specified in subsection (2A) below are fulfilled,'.

      No. 73, in page 33, leave out line 28 and insert—
      '(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above are—'.
      No. 74, in page 33, line 35, leave out 'or'.
      No. 75, in page 33, line 37, leave out passes' and insert 'has passed'.
      No. 76, in page 33, line 38, leave out is' and insert 'has been'.
      No. 77, in page 33, line 38, leave out or' and insert 'and'.
      No. 78, in page 33, line 39, leave out is' and insert 'has been'.
      No. 79, in page 34, line 5, at end insert:
      '(2A) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are—
      922

      (a) that the company is included among the companies falling within Part I of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 to the Act, and

      (b) that before the relevant vesting date the Secretary of State has served a notice of acquisition on a company (in this section referred to as "the acquired company") of which, at the date of service. it is the subsidiary'.

      No. 80, in nage 34, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'company' and insert:
      '(3) A notice served on a company under this section because it appeared to the Secretary of State that the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above were fulfilled shall cease to have effect if the notice of acquisition served on the acquired company is withdrawn or revoked.
      (3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, a'.
      No. 81, in page 34, line 7, leave out one month' and insert 'three months'.
      No. 82, in page 34, line 9, leave out from 'that' to end of line 12 and insert:
      the circumstances at the date of service did not fall within subsection (2) or (2A) above'.
      No. 83, in page 34, line 15, leave out from 'withdrawn,' to 'shall' in line 18 and insert:
      any question whether the circumstances at the date of service of the Secretary of State's notice fell within subsection (2) or (2A) above'.
      No. 84, in page 34, line 37, at end insert:
      '(5A) Where—
      (a) a notice under this section has been served on a company because it appeared to the Secretary of State that the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above were fulfilled in relation to it, and'.
      No. 85, in page 34, line 39, leave out not withdrawn or revoked' and insert:
      neither withdrawn nor revoked, and does not cease to have effect by virtue of subsection (3) above'.
      No. 86, in page 35, line 2, at end add:
      '(6A) In this Act "excluded company" means a company in relation to which this Act has effect as mentioned in subsection (6) above.'
      No. 87, in page 35, line 9, leave out 'and Edinburgh' and insert 'Edinburgh and Belfast'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 28

      PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WORKS
      Amendments made: No. 88, in page 35, line 19, leave out from 'it' to end of line 20.
      No. 89, in page 35, leave out lines 38 and 39.
      No. 90, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subject to subsection (5A) below, any transaction purporting to effect such a transfer or grant as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above shall be void.'.
      No. 91, in page 36, line 16, leave out from 'parties' to end of line 25 and insert—
      '(5A) If proceedings for the determination of such a question are not commenced within the period of 9 months beginning on the date of transfer or (if the company concerned has no date of transfer) the relevant vesting date, the transaction shall be deemed always to have been valid (but without prejudice to the effect of any agreement under subsection (5) above.'
      No. 92, in page 36, line 29, leave out '12' and insert '9'.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

    Clause 29

      RECOVERY OF ASSETS TRANSFERRED AWAY
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 37, line 26, leave out 'in the public interest' and insert
      'necessary, for the purpose of enabling one of the Corporations fully to carry out its functions under this Act,'.
      No. 94, in page 37, line 32, leave out 'a notice of acquisition'.
      No. 95, in page 37, line 33, at end add
      'a notice (in this Act referred to as a "Schedule 4 notice") stating that Schedule 4 below applies to rights or property specified in the notice'.
      No. 96, in page 37, line 34, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 97, in page 37, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 98, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'invention or design' and insert 'or property'.
      No. 99, in page 38, line 37, leave out from 'such' to 'above' in line 38 and insert
      'property or rights as are specified in subsection (1)(a)(i) or (ii)'.
      No. 100, in page 38, line 42, leave out 'rights referred to in paragraph (c) above' and insert
      'property or rights'.
      No. 101, in page 38, line 44, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 45.
      No. 102, in page 39, line 1, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
      'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 103, in page 39, line 2, leave out 'two' and insert '3'.
      No. 104, in page 39, line 5, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
      'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 105, in page 39, line 11, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
      'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 106, in page 39, line 17, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
      'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 107, in page 39, line 19, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert
      'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 30

      DISSIPATION OF ASSETS BY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING HOLDERS OF SECURITIES, ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 108, in page 39, line 28, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert
      'the safeguarding date'.
      No. 109, in page 39, line 37, leave out '17th March 1975' and insert
      'the safeguarding date'.
      No. 110, in page 41, line 7, leave out '12' and insert '9'.
      No. 111, in page 41, line 32, leave out
      'subject to subsection (8) below,'.
      No. 112, in page 41, line 39, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 31

      ONEROUS TRANSACTIONS: DISCLAIMER AND RECOVERY OF LOSSES
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 42, line 27, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert
      'the day after the safeguarding date'.
      No. 114, in page 42, line 45, leave out '12' and insert '9'.
      No. 115, in page 43, line 2, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert
      'the day after the safeguarding date'.
      No. 116, in page 43, line 20, leave out from 'lease' to 'is' in line 21 and insert—
      '(5A) In this Act a notice under subsection (5) above'.
      No. 117, in page 44, line 13, leave out from 'met' to end of line 21.—[Mr. Les Huck field.]

    Clause 32

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 31
      Amendments made: No. 118, in page 44, line 34, leave out from 'above', to 'requires' in line 35 and insert
      'neither—

      (a) the following enactments, namely—

      (i) section 2(3) of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and

      (ii) section 2(3) of the Frustrated Contracts Act (Northern Ireland) 1947 (each of which'.

      No. 119, in page 44, line 37, leave out 'shall not' and insert
      'nor
      (b) any rule of the common law of Scotland corresponding to those enactments, shall'.
      No. 120, in page 44, line 44, leave out
      'under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943'
      and insert
      'as a result of its frustration'.
      No. 121, in page 45, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 33

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISSIPATION OF ASSETS
      Amendment made: No. 122, in page 45, line 29, leave out
      'notice of acquisition under section 29 above'
      and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]

    Clause 37

      BASE VALUE OF SECURITIES OF A LISTED CLASS
      Amendments made: No. 123, in page 49, line 25, leave out 'this' and insert 'that'.
      No. 324, in page 50, leave out lines 32 to 34.—[Mr. Les Huckfield.]
      Mr, Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 290, in page 50, line 32, after 'means' insert:
      'whichever of the days hereinafter specified the stockholders' representative may elect namely either the nearest Wednesday to the
      926
      15th day of each of the months in the period of 12 months beginning with March 1973 or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 293, in Clause 38, page 51, line 8, leave out from 'the' to end of line 14 and insert:
      'fair price to pay for such securities taking into account all the circumstances of the acquired company, the base value of whose securities fall to be determined, including the future prospects and the trading record of that company and its net assets'.
      Mr. Taylor: In Committee I made frequent attempts to improve the Bill, but whenever I did so the Minister said "We connot do that, because it breaks the precedents from the Gas Act". I became almost obsessed with the Gas Act and, therefore, studied it to see the many excellent things in it which the Minister might not have noticed and which we might be able to incorporate in the Bill.
      The clause defines the base value of listed securities for compensation purposes as being determined by reference to the average quoted values on each Wednesday in the six months to Wednesday 27th February 1974. Although some concern was expressed on both sides about whether the compensation was too much or too little, everyone seemed to agree that that was a very artificial and short period for the purpose.
      The object of my amendment is to provide the stockholders' representative with an election between two periods for valuation purposes, which include one longer period in place of the single six-month period specified in the Bill. Is the selection of only one period unique, or has it been done before? As far as I can see, it is almost exceptional in nationalisation measures. I can find it in no other.
      There is a choice of two periods in the Transport Act 1947, the Electricity Act 1947, even in the Gas Act 1948, in the Iron and Steel Act 1949, the Iron and Steel Act 1967—a terrible Act—and the Ports Act 1969, which was even worse. In that dreadful measure, the Iron and Steel Act 1967, and in the Ports Act, the choices were between six months, in the case of steel five years, and in the case of ports three years. It has been recognised in all nationalisation Bills that the only way to try to be fair in all the circumstances is to have a choice between a short period and a

      927
      longer period. Six months is a very artificial period and can be very unfair.
      Apart from that, we must see whether the six months' period is entirely normal and fair. I do not think that it can be, because the six months to the end of February 1974 were most unusual. They were unfair and abnormal months to choose for stock valuation purposes. There were first, the Middle East War; secondly, the oil crisis; thirdly, the miners' strike; fourthly, the three-day working week; fifthly, the run-up to the General Election; and, sixthly, price and dividend control throughout the period.
      I appreciate that, as the Minister of State has admitted many times, under a Labour Government, disasters come frequently. It could be alleged that a disaster period was a normal period for valuation purposes, but I think even the hon. Gentleman will agree that to pick those six months when we had all those dreadful and unusual things is not fair.
      In addition, no matter what formula is arrived at, if the period is as short as six months it may be fair to some and very unfair to others. My suggestion, which is a compromise based on all the precedents of other nationalisation measures, will be fairer because it gives a choice. It cannot be as fair as Amendment No. 293, which refers to a "fair price". That is the right way, but the Minister has said time and again that he wants to do it on the basis of stock market valuations. If he is doing that, it is better to pick a long period than a short period.
      I hope that as a gesture of good will the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasonable amendment. If he is not entirely convinced, I ask him to answer two brief questions. First, why do all the other nationalisation measures adopt what I propose while his is different? Secondly, does he honestly think that it is fair to pick a period when there were events such as the Middle East War, the oil crisis, the miners' strike, the three-day working week, the run-up to the General Election and price and dividend control?
      We are moving into a time of cumulative disasters because of Socialist Government. In Scotland there are 165,000 unemployed, and projects such as the Hunterston steel project are not
      928
      proceeding. Terrible things are happening all the time. But we are here talking about a period just after the golden age of Conservative Government, when things were going well. Therefore, to pick that six-month period is very unfair and unreasonable.
      I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment. The only way to be fair to a diversity of companies whose circumstances were different is to give a choice of periods which will ensure that what may be fair for one can also be fair to others.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufman: When the hon. Gentleman asks for a compromise, I am reminded of the late Kingsley Martin's demand for a fair balance between partiality and impartiality. The hon. Gentleman's request for the Government to make a concession to the House is a perfectly understandable request that we make a concession to him. I should like to explain why we cannot do so, although I think that the hon. Gentleman will know some of the reasons, because Amendment No. 290 is identical to an amendment moved and rejected in Committee.
      The amendment seeks to offer the stockholders' representative for each company a choice of reference period for the valuation of securities. The hon. Gentleman proposes, in effect, an extension backwards of the existing reference from six months to a year. From the middle of 1972 to early 1975 the stock market generally was in decline. The Financial Times ordinary share index fell from an all-time peak of over 500 in mid-1972 to a low of less than 150 in January 1975. I think everyone would accept that both those extremes represented exceptional circumstances. Both were an exaggeration of the true market situation.
      Between those two extremes the Financial Times index averaged about 370, almost identical to the average of the index throughout the reference period prescribed in the Bill. Therefore, I think that it would be accepted by most fair-minded people—from whom I exclude the hon. Gentleman only in this context, and not generally—that the present reference period could not be fairer than it is. It accurately reflects the mid-point of the market over the past three to four

      929
      years and avoids the period of excessive caution which gave rise to the abnormal low at the start of 1975. At the same time, it does not reflect the high degree of speculation during the golden period of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, which gave rise to the mid-1972 high.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to take the view that this fair, mid-point position is not good enough. He believes that shareholders are entitled to make a profit from the historical accident that stock market levels happened to be higher in the early part of 1973 than in the early part of 1974. I cannot accept that. The amendment would inevitably give more to the shareholders at the expense of taxpayers. That cannot be fair.
      The fairness of the six months to February 1974, during the golden period of Conservative Government which the hon Gentleman recollects—indeed, when it reached its apotheosis—is that it was the latest period in which stock market prices were unaffected by the prospect of nationalisation. Nobody knew, not even the then Prime Minister, that we should have a General Election on 28th February. Until almost the time when it was announced, nobody could have anticipated it. Pessimists as we are, there were not all that many of us who expected that if such an election came it would result in the return of a Labour Government, pledged to nationalisation of these industries. I recognise that the result of the election was a matter of some concern to the hon. Gentleman although he did unusually well—but he will understand that I hope he will not continue to do so well in the future.
      When we discussed the dividend controls in the safeguarding provisions in Committee, hon. Members opposite made great play of what they considered to be the injustice of a remote basis financial year for determining the permitted level of dividends. They claimed that it was inappropriate to control current dividend levels by reference to a past year. But in Amendment No. 290 the Opposition are proposing to extend the reference period for compensation further back in time. If they really believed that for dividends the past was of no relevance, it is hard to accept that in terms of a valuation the past suddenly becomes the most important factor. One is drawn to
      930
      the conclusion that hon. Members opposite are concerned only with obtaining the maximum possible for shareholders, with no regard to the consistency of their arguments.
      The existing reference period offers a fair basis of valuation for the securities of the vesting companies. The alternative proposed in the amendment would destroy this fairness by giving an un-covenanted benefit to shareholders at the expense of the taxpayers. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Amendment No. 290 represents the partisan case put by the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill on behalf of the shareholders, irrespective of the cost to the taxpayer. The Opposition are suggesting that the existing terms of the Bill are less than fair. We utterly reject that.
      The compensation terms in the Bill are for unquoted securities to be valued as if they had been quoted on the Stock Exchange during the six months up to the end of February 1974. The Stock Exchange is well recognised as an impartial and objective judge of the value of securities. Techniques for imputing Stock Exchange valuations to unquoted securities are tried and tested—in the City of London as well as within Government. It is sheer hypocrisy for Opposition to claim otherwise. Where it suits their case they are quite prepared to make use of the value of the stock market indices, either to criticise the present Government or to demonstrate their own achievements. It is therefore right to take into account the condition of the stock market in valuing shares for compensation purposes.
      But it now suits them and those whose interests they represent to say that a Stock Exchange basis is not good enough. Instead, they are seeking to set the valuation at what they are pleased to call a fair price. They go on to say that that "fair price" should take account of the trading record and future prospects of the company and its net assets. As everyone knows, without a separate independent assets valuation, which is a very lengthy process, the net assets of a company as recorded in its books reflects only the particular accounting conventions of the company. There is nothing objective

      931
      about that. The amendment sets no yardstick whatsoever for taking into account past records and future prospects. What the Opposition are asking the House to approve is a compensation package which is open-ended and says little more than "compensation shall be as much as the shareholders can get".
      I therefore urge the House to reject Amendment 293 for what it is, a shallow attempt to benefit shareholders at the expense of the community as a whole.
      Mr. Tom King: In his attack on the amendment, the Minister particularly criticised its wording. But it includes a direct extract from the statement of the previous Secretary of State for Industry when he established the basis of the price that the Government paid for the Court Line shares. It is unusual that the Minister should choose to attack that wording as if it was a totally unrealistic basis on which to proceed. We tabled the amendment on that basis with the words of the Secretary of State in mind. We assumed that if that was the correct basis on which the Government chose to work, it would be acceptable. It is wrong that the Minister should accuse us of inconsistency, because the Secretary of State said that legislation would provide for fair compensation. We wonder what the Government mean by "fair compensation".
      We have been through the problem before. We are talking about shareholders, and the Minister made an interesting Freudian slip during our discussions on the Drypool Group when he said that he was not interested in the speculator element in Kingston upon Hull. In other words, in his mind "shareholder" means "speculator".
      Does the hon. Gentleman realise that involved in this industry are about 1,000 pension funds? That is the best estimate that can be made. There is also about £200,000 of private money invested by individuals with very small savings. Their interests and their voices should be represented and heard in the House.
      The Minister said that the stock market price was a fair way to value the worth of a company, but that is not true. Stock market listed prices are prices for small parcels of shares in daily circulation on the stock market. Why did he support the Felix-
      932
      stowe Docks Bill when the price quoted was 90p and the British Transport Docks Board recognised that to acquire control it would have to pay £1·50p each for the shares? That is an example of the total inconsistency of the Government.
      In Committee the Minister said:
      "We are paying what the shares are worth to the sellers while they are in the hands of the sellers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9th March 1976; c. 1655.]
      But he failed to mention that none of these people is a voluntary seller. They are being compulsorily released of their shares and they are certainly entitled to a normal commercial price. Normally, in any acquisition of control of an undertaking, people will pay up to one-third more for their shares. Inflation has increased by about one-third since that time.
      I shall illustrate my case by explaining the position of two particular companies. Vosper Thornycroft, which is likely to get about £4 million in compensation, will probably make a profit of about £4 million this year, and it has assets of just under £20 million. No hon. Member can pretend that the proposed compensation comes within any definition of fairness. Yarrow will receive between £4 and £5 million in compensation, but its profits this year will be in excess of £7 million and its assets are worth £10 million.
      We are not fighting this case on behalf of a few speculators. We are fighting for fair compensation for the 1,000 pension funds and other investors involved. We regard the Government's present proposals as being quite outrageous and ridiculous. Therefore, we shall press our second amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 38

      BASE VALUE OF OTHER SECURITIES
      Amendments made: No. 124, in page 51, line 4, leave out from 'but' to 'shall' in line 5 and insert:
      'were not listed in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List on each of those days'.
      No. 125, in page 51, line 6, leave out 'agreed' and insert 'determined by agreement'.— [Mr. Les Huck field.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 293, in page 51, line 8, leave out from 'the' to end of line 14 and insert:
      'fair price to pay for such securities taking into account all the circumstances of the acquired company, the base value of whose securities fall to be determined, including the

      Division No. 298.]

      AYES

      [6.0 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lawson, Nigel

      Alison, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Forman, Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Arnold, Tom

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fox, Marcus

      Loveridge, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Luce, Richard

      Baker, Kenneth

      Fry, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Banks, Robert

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      McCusker, H.

      Bell, Ronald

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      MacGregor, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Benyon, W.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Biffen, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Madel, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Blaker, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Marten, Neil

      Body, Richard

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mates, Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gorst, John

      Maude, Angus

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bowden, A, (Brighton, Kemplown)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mawby, Ray

      Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gray, Hamish

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Brittan, Leon

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Grist, Ian

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Brolherton, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hall, Sir John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moate, Roger

      Buck, Antony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Molyneaux, James

      Budgen, Nick

      Hannam, John

      Monro, Hector

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Burden, F. A.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hastings, Stephen

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morgan, Geraint

      Carson, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hicks, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Neave, Airey

      Clegg, Walter

      Holland, Philip

      Nelson, Anthony

      Cockcroft, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Newtnn, Tony

      Cope,John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Cordle, John H.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Nott, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Corrie, John

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Costain, A. P.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Osborn, John

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Critchley, Julian

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Crouch, David

      James, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Crowder, F. P.

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

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Michael

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Dunlop, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Durant, Tony

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ralson, Timothy

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      Rathbone, Tim

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Elliott, Sir William

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Emery, Peter

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Knox, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Farr, John

      Lament, Norman

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Fell, Anthony

      Lane, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      future prospects and the trading record of that company and its net assets'.—[Mr. Tom King.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 329.

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Sproat, Iain

      Wakenham, John

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Stainton, Keith

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Stanley, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Wall, Patrick

      Scott, Nicholas

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Walters, Dennis

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Stokes, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wells, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shepherd, Colin

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shersby, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Silvester, Fred

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Sims, Roger

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Younger, Hon George

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Speed, Keith

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. Jim Lester and

      Spence, John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mr. Carol Mather.

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hooley, Frank

      Allaun, Frank

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Anderson, Donald

      Deakins, Eric

      Horam, John

      Archer, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Ashley, Jack

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dempsey, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Bates, Alt

      Dunn, James A.

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Bean, R. E.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hunter, Adam

      Beith, A. J.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Eadie, Alex

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Edge, Geoff

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Janner, Greville

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boardman, H.

      English, Michael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Ennals, David

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      John, Brynmor

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Bradley, Tom

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Judd, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Buchanan, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Kelley, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Kerr, Russell

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kinnock, Neil

      Campbell, Ian

      Ford, Ben

      Lambie, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Forrester, John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Lamond, James

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Carter, Ray

      Freeson, Reginald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Freud, Clement

      Lee, John

      Cartwright, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Clemitson, Ivor

      George, Bruce

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ginsburg, David

      Liplon, Marcus

      Coleman, Donald

      Golding, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Gould, Bryan

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Concannon, J. D.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Graham, Ted

      Luard, Evan

      Corbett, Robin

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cronin, John

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      MacCormick, Iain

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hardy, Peter

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Cryer, Bob

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hatton, Frank

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Hayman, Mrs

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davidson, Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Henderson, Douglas

      McNamara, Kevin

      Madden, Max

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Magee, Bryan

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, George

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mahon, Simon

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Roberts, Albert (Normantun)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Tinn, James

      Marquand, David

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomlinson, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Tomney, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Torney, Tom

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Meacher, Michael

      Rooker, J. W.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Roper, John

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mendelson, John

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Night)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Millan, Bruce

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Waker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ward, Michael

      Moonman, Eric

      Selby, Harry

      Watkins, David

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Watkinson, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Watt, Hamish

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Weetch, Ken

      Moyle, Roland

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Weitzman, David

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Newens, Stanley

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Noble, Mike

      Sillars, James

      White, James (Pollok)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Silverman, Julius

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ogden, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitlock, William

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Small, William

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Orbach, Maurice

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Ovenden, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Owen, Dr David

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Padley, Walter

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Pardoe, John

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Park, George

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Parker, John

      Stoddart, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Strang, Gavin

      Woodall, Alec

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Woof, Robert

      Pendry, Tom

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Penhaligon, David

      Swain, Thomas

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Perry, Ernest

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Mr, Joseph Harper and

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Mr, James Hamilton.

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20th July] and the Resolution [27th July], to put forthwith Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded.
      Amendments made: No. 126, in page 51, line 11, leave out from "days" to end of line 14 and insert—
      "(1A) Subsections (2), (3), (4) and (6) of section 37 above shall have effect in relation to securities to which subsection (1) above applies as they have effect in relation to securities to which subsection (1) of that section applies.
      (1B) The arbitration tribunal, in determining the base value that any securities would have had if they had been listed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, shall have regard to all relevant factors.".
      No. 127, in page 51, line 18, after "class", insert—
      "issued before the first of the relevant days".
      No. 128, in page 51, line 21, at end insert—
      "(2A) For the purposes of determining in accordance with subsection (1) above the base value of securities of any company, it shall be assumed that the assets of that company were not subject to any charge on any of the relevant days.".
      No. 129, in page 51, line 22, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      No. 130, in page 52, line 16, leave out
      ", within the meaning of section 154 of the Companies Act 1948,".
      No. 131, in page 52, line 25, leave out
      "wholly or partly appurtenant to an undertaking".
      No. 132, in page 52, line 28, leave out "or (4)".
      No. 133, in page 52, line 31, leave out
      "were wholly or partly appurtenant to the undertaking in question and".
      No. 134, in page 52, line 33, at end add
      "and as would have satisfied a vesting condition for the purposes of the said section 20".
      No. 135, in page 53, line 15, at end insert—
      "(8A) Subject to subsection (8B) below, where securities of a new class have been issued after the last of the relevant days, the base value of the securities of that class for the purpose of section 35 above shall be deemed to be the price at which they were issued or, if they were issued free, shall be deemed to be nil; and

      (a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 37 above shall have effect in relation to any fresh issue or conversion of securities of the new class, and

      (b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection.

      (8B) Where—

      (a) apart from this subsection the base value of securities would fall to be ascertained under subsection (8A) above, and

      (b) they were issued for a consideration consisting in whole or in part of the transfer to the company by which they were issued (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferee') of the whole or any part of an undertaking of another company (in this subsection referred to as 'the transferor') which at the date of that transfer was a member of the same group of companies as the transferee,

      the base value shall instead be determined in accordance with subsection (1) above, on the assumptions—

      (i) that the securities were in existence on each of the relevant days; and

      (ii) that on each of the relevant days the undertaking of the transferee included the whole or, as the case may require, the part of the undertaking carried on on that day by the transferor which then corresponded to the undertaking or part thereof transferred to the transferee by way of consideration for the issue of the securities; and

      (iii) that, in any case where the transfer of the undertaking or part thereof formed only part of the consideration for the issue of the securities, the remainder of that consideration was an asset of the transferee on each of the relevant days.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 39

      THE APPROPRIATE DEDUCTION
      Amendments made: No. 136, in Clause 39, in page 53, line 19, leave out from 'section' to 'a' in line 20.
      No. 137, in page 53, line 24, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
      No. 138, in page 53, line 24, at end insert—

      '(a) if any of the conditions specified in subsection (2) below is fulfilled, and

      940

      (b) in a case to which subsection (3A) below applies'.

      No. 139, in page 53, line 29, leave out 'before 18th March 1975' and insert:
      'not later than the safeguarding date'.
      No. 140, in page 53, line 35, at end insert—
      '(aa) that a company has, in pursuance of an authority or recommendation contained in a resolution of the directors of the company passed after 27th February 1974 and not later than the safeguarding date, and at a date on which it was a wholly owned subsidiary of an acquired company, made payments of interest of such a nature and amount that, on the relevant hypothesis, all persons who were directors of the company at the time when the resolution was passed would he liable to make a payment to the relevant Corporation under section 23(2) above;'.
      No. 141, in page 53, line 43, leave out 'made or'.
      No. 142, in page 54, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
      (2A) The fulfilment with respect to a wholly owned subsidiary of an acquired company of a condition specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as its fulfilment'.
      No. 143, in page 54, line 8, leave out 'in sections 23, 24 and 30 above to 17th March 1975'
      and insert:
      'to the safeguarding date in section 23 or 30 above'.
      No. 144, in page 54, line 11, leave out from 'the' to 'to' in line 12, and insert:
      'references to 29th October 1974 in section 24(1)(b) and (2) above there were substituted references'.
      No. 145, in page 54, line 15, leave out' 18th March 1975' and insert:
      'the day after the safeguarding date'.
      No. 146, in page 54, line 20, leave out from 'reference' to 'there' in line 21, and insert:
      'to the date of transfer in section 23, 30 or 31 above'.
      No. 147, in page 54, line 22, leave out '18th March 1975' and insert:
      'the day after the safeguarding date'.
      No. 148, in page 54, line 22, at end insert—
      '(3A) This subsection applies where, within the period beginning on 28th February 1974 and ending—

      (a) on the date of service of a notice under section 21(1) above, or

      941

      (b) 9 months after the date of transfer,

      whichever is the earlier, there has been repayment of the whole or any part of the principal of a debt the right to repayment of which, had the debt continued in existence, would, on the service of a notice under the said section 21(1), have been treated as mentioned in subsection (5)(a) of that section.'.
      No. 149, in page 54, line 29, leave out 'in subsection (2)(a)' and insert:
      'specified in subsection (2)(a) or (aa)'.
      No. 150, in page 54, line 34, after 'condition', insert 'specified'.
      No. 151, in page 54, line 40, after 'condition', insert 'specified'.
      No. 152, in page 54, line 45, at end add:
      'and
      (d) in a case to which subsection (3A) above applies, the net loss to the Corporation resulting from the repayment in question.'.
      No. 153, in page 55, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 2 and insert:
      (5) The question—

      (a) whether any, and if so which, of the conditions specified in subsection (2) above is fulfilled, or

      (b) whether, in any case, subsection (3A) above applies,

      and any question as to

      (i) the amount of the appropriate deduction to be made in respect of any securities, or

      (ii) any amount to be included in such a deduction by virtue of subsection (4) above.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 41

      STOCKHOLDERS' REPRESENTATIVES
      Amendment made: No. 155, in page 57, line 9, leave out 'officers of that company or' and insert:
      'employees of that company or of any such'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 43

      SCOTTISH PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 156, in Clause 43, page 59, line 14, leave out from 'and' to second 'in' in line 16 and insert:
      'either—

      (a) the company's principal United Kingdom place of business, or

      (b) the place of the company's principal United Kingdom works,

      is situated'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 44

      STAFF AND EXPENSES OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
      Amendments made: No. 157, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'officers' and insert 'staff'.
      No. 158, in page 59, line 42, leave out 'any officer' and insert 'staff'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 47

      PROVISIONS AS TO PENSION RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 159, in page 62, leave out lines 1 to 28 and insert:
      '(4) Subject to subsection (4B) below, the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make, in relation to any pension scheme not made under subsection (1) above (in this section referred to as an "existing scheme") which provides for pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been employed by a company which becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of either Corporation such provision as appears to him to be expedient in consequence of its having become such a subsidiary.
      (4A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, regulations under that subsection may make provision—

      (a) for the complete or partial amalgamation of existing schemes either with other such schemes or with schemes established under subsection (1) above;

      (b) for amending, repealing or revoking any existing schemes, any enactment relating to an existing scheme or to a scheme resulting from an amalgamation under paragraph (a) above or any trust deed, rules or other instrument made for the purposes of an existing scheme or of a scheme resulting from such an amalgamation;

      (c) for the complete or partial transfer of liabilities and obligations under existing schemes or for reducing or extinguishing such liabilities or obligations;

      (d) for the complete or partial transfer, or the winding-up, of any pension fund held for the purposes of an existing scheme; and

      (e) for supplemental or consequential matters'.

      No. 160, in page 62, line 29, leave out 'but nothing in this subsection' and insert:
      '(4B) Nothing in subsection (4) or (4A) above'.
      No. 161, in page 62, line 33, leave out from 'to' to 'under' in line 38 and insert:
      'subsection (5A) below, regulations'.
      No. 162, in page 62, line 42, at end insert:
      '(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) above may make exceptional provisions to meet cases in which, in connection with any provision made by this Act or in anticipation of the making of any such provision, pension rights have been created otherwise than in the ordinary course'.
      No. 163, in page 63, line 2, leave out from 'regulations' to 'shall' in line 4 and insert:
      '(6A) Any question whether or not the result referred to in subsection (5) above has been secured by regulations under subsection (4) above, including any question whether it has been secured by amending regulations under that subsection made in pursuance of subsection (6) above,'.
      No. 164, in page 63, line 17, after 'above', insert:
      'other than a provision expressed to be made to meet a case such as is mentioned in subsection (5A) above'.
      No. 165, in page 63, line 18, leave out 'either' and insert 'that'.
      No. 166, in page 63, line 20, leave out from 'scheme' to 'that' in line 21.
      No. 167, in page 63, line 44, leave out subsection (10).
      No. 168, in page 64, line 3, leave out subsection (11).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 48

      COMPENSATION FOR Loss OF EMPLOYMENT, EMOLUMENTS OR PENSION RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 169, in page 64, line 34, leave out 'officers' and insert 'employees'.
      No. 170, in page 65, line 21, leave out from 'practice' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 49

      FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendments made: No. 171, in Clause 49, in page 66, line 10, leave out 'and'.
      No. 172, in page 66, line 11, leave out from 'been' to 'any' in line 13 and insert
      'employed by a company falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, and
      (e) any person who is or has been a director or auditor of'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 51

      LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 173, in page 68, line 13, leave out from 'person' to 'shall' in line 15 and insert
      'to whom this subsection applies and who is liable in respect of any debt or liability of the company under a contract of guarantee or indemnity made before the company became such a subsidiary'.
      No. 325, in page 68, line 15 at end add—
      '(3) The persons to whom subsection (3) above applies are persons who, immediately before the company became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Corporation—

      (a) were associated persons, or

      (b) controlled some other company or body corporate which controlled it.'

      No. 175, in page 68, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below, no person shall, in respect of a loan,—

      (a) become entitled to exercise any right, or

      (b) become subject to any obligation, on the ground—

      (i) of the passing of this Act, or

      (ii) of anything done by virtue of this Act, or

      (iii) of anything done following the passing of this Act in relation to an acquired company or a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company, or

      (iv) of anything necessarily resulting from the passing of this Act or from anything done as mentioned in paragraph (ii) or (iii) above.'.

      No. 176, in page 68, line 23, at end insert—
      '(5A) Subsection (5) above shall not have effect in relation to any right vested in a person to whom subsection (3) above applies in respect of a loan made after the last of the relevant days to an acquired company or a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company.'.
      No. 177, in page 68, line 24, leave out subsections (6) to (8).—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 54

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 326, in page 70, line 20, at end insert—
      '"associated person", in relation to a company or its wholly owned subsidiary means—

      (a) a person who controls the company, or

      (b) a body corporate controlled by a person who also controls the company.'

      No. 179, in page 70, line 29, leave out 'of a company'.
      No. 180, in page 70, line 31, at end add:
      'or, in the case of a company incorporated in Northern Ireland, section 148(5) of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960;
      No. 181, in page 70, line 32, leave out from second 'company' to end of line 34 and insert:
      'has the meaning assigned to it by section 27(6A) above;'.
      No. 182, in page 70, line 38, at end insert:
      '"industrial or intellectual property" includes, without prejudice to its generality, patents, designs, trade marks, know-how and copy-rights;'
      No. 183, in page 71, line 5, at end insert:
      '"know-how" means any industrial information and techniques likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or materials or the repair of goods;'.
      No. 184, in page 71, line 5, at end insert:
      '"lease" includes an agreement for a lease and any tenancy agreement,'.
      No. 185, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
      "mortgage" in relation to Scotland, means a heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;'.
      No. 186, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
      '"notice of acquisition" has the meaning assigned to it by section 26(1) above;'.
      No. 187, in page 71, line 8, at end insert:
      '"notice of disclaimer" has the meaning assigned to it by section 31(5A) above;'.
      No. 188, in page 71, leave out lines 9 to 12.
      No. 189, in page 71, line 12, at end insert:
      '"operate", in relation to any works, means to be actively engaged, whether alone or with others, in the management of the works, but a person shall not be deemed to operate works by reason only that he exercises an indirect control of their management by means of the holding of shares in the operating company or otherwise;'.
      No. 190, in page 71, line 12, at end insert:
      "pension", in relation to any person, means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any
      946
      kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of him, and includes a gratuity so payable and a return of contributions or insurance premiums to a pension fund with or without interest or any other addition;
      "pension rights" includes all forms of right to or eligibility for, the present or future payment of a pension to or in respect of a person, and any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of a person under any customary practice, and also includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;
      "pension scheme" includes any form of arrangements for the payment of pensions, whether subsisting by virtue of an Act, trust, contract or otherwise, and also includes any customary practice under which pensions are paid;'.
      No. 327, in page 71, line 21, at end insert:
      '"the relevant clays" means 27th December 1973 and every Wednesday, other than 26th December 1973, in the period of six months beginning on 1st September 1973;'.
      No. 191, in page 71, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of page 72, line 2.
      No. 192, in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
      '"safeguarding date" means—

      (a) in relation to a company on which the Secretary of State serves a notice of acquisition, the date of service of the notice, and

      (b) in relation to any other company, 17th March 1975;'.

      No. 193, in page 72, line 2, at end insert—
      '"Schedule 4 notice" has the meaning assigned to it by section 29(1) above;'.
      No. 194, in page 72, line 20, at end add—
      "voting power" does not include voting rights which arise only in limited circumstances;'.
      No. 195, in page 72, line 23, after '1948', insert:
      'and section 144 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960'.
      No. 196, in page 72, line 38, at end insert—
      '(1A) For the purposes of this Act, in relation to land in England, Wales or Northern Ireland),—

      (a) "own" includes hold or lease;

      (b) "rights of ownership" means an estate in fee simple or a lease; and

      (c) property owned by a member of a partnership and held by him for the purposes of the partnership shall be deemed to be owned by each of the members of the partnership.

      947
      (1B) For the purposes of this Act, in relation to land in Scotland,—

      (a) "own" includes hold on lease;

      (b) "right of ownership" means—

      (i) if the land is feudal property, the estate or interest of the proprietor of dominium mile, or

      (ii) if the land is not feudal property, the estate or interest of the owner, or

      (iii) a lease; and

      (c) property owned by a member of a partnership and held by him for the purposes of the partnership shall be deemed to be owned by the firm'.

      No. 328, in page 73, line 30, at end insert—
      '(5A) For the purposes of this Act a person controls a company or other body coporate if he is entitled to exercise, or to control the exercise, of at least one third of the voting power at any general meeting of that body corporate.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that earlier today reference was made by my hon. Friends on the Government side about the activities of representatives of a public relations firm called International News Services, which has been particularly active in trying to impress a particular point of view over the legislation that we are now discussing.
      Immediately before the last Division, on coming into the Chamber I observed a representative of that firm standing in the Members' Lobby in conversation with a Member of Parliament. I believe that the Members' Lobby is reserved for the use of Members of Parliament and accredited Lobby correspondents and that the gentleman concerned, as he is not an accredited Lobby correspondent, has no business to stay in the Members' Lobby in conversation. I therefore ask whether action can be taken to ensure that this person is not allowed to stay in the Members' Lobby, as this obviously reflects on matters which were brought to the attention of the House earlier.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Chair will look into the matter.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) made a mistake, as you will have observed, when he said that
      948
      accredited Lobby correspondents are allowed in. In fact, no one but a Member is allowed to be in the Members' Lobby. Even accredited Lobby correspondents are not allowed there, much as we admire and respect them. If it is good enough for them to have to withdraw, I certainly think—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point has been made.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand you to say that the activities of this person are to be investigated? This sort of activity could become a very serious intrusion into the very nature of this Parliament.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be looked into at once.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter, and I appeal to you to make a declaration from the Chair that the Members' Lobby is for Members of Parliament only and not for representatives of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, because in essence that is what they are.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The present incumbent of the Chair is investigating the matter. It will be a matter for Mr. Speaker's ruling.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect it is not, because my hon. Friend is quite right. I ask you to confirm that it is laid down as a rule of the House that during a Division no Strangers may be allowed in the Members' Lobby. I want this to be clear. Even Library staff and officials of the House are told that they cannot stand there and must leave. Indeed it happened to me, because a correspondent was speaking to me and he was moved out of the Members' Lobby—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The circumstances are being investigated and the matter will be reported to Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you, please, to answer my point of order. Is it or is it not a rule of the House that no one but a Member of Parliament is

      949
      allowed to be in the Members' Lobby when a Division is in progress? If you do not rule that that is the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want you to tell the police that it is wrong for them to stop—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Apparently the hon. Gentleman and the Chair are at cross purposes. No one is allowed to be present in the Members' Lobby during a Division. If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I apologise.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is all right.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as we have that matter clear. I think I have ruled on the substantive point of order raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).
      Mr. Thomas Swain: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite possible that there may be another Division before Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair. As a consequence, you will be solely in charge of the affairs of the House. What I am asking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is that in the interim period, until Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair, you will guarantee, with the authority that you have at your disposal, that no member of any public relations firm or any stranger will be allowed to remain for one second in the Lobby when the Division bells begin to ring.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can give that assurance. It may be that at the exact moment when the Division bells begin to ring people will be going into the Gallery. If so, they will be moved immediately by those on duty in the Members' Lobby. That disposes of the point.

    Schedule 2

      SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
      Mr Peter Viggers: I beg to move Amendment No. 239, in page 75, leave out lines 15 to 17.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 240, in page 76, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert '15,000 gross tons'.
      No. 241, in page 77, line 38, leave out
      'except in the case of a warship'.
      No. 242, in page 77, line 43, leave out from 'registered)' to end of line 2 on page 78.
      Mr. Viggers: The effect of these amendments will be to delete from the Bill the names of three warship manufacturers, Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited, Vosper Thornycroft Limited and Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.
      Whatever the case for the nationalisation of some parts of the aircraft or shipbuilding industry, the warship manufacturing industry has special factors. Vickers, at Barrow-in-Furness employs 13,000 people. Yarrow operates on the Clyde, and Vosper Thornycroft employs 7,000 people at Woolston, near Southampton, and at Cosham, near Portsmouth.
      Warship manufacture is highly specialised. The basic cost of the vessel in substantially final form is normally only half or two-thirds of the total cost, which includes the weapon packs.
      The warship manufacturers engage in design and construction and work with the customers in producing highly specialised vessels. The three yards that I have named are designated by the Royal Navy as "lead yards" for design and construction. This means that they not only design the ships but are instructed and authorised to carry out the construction of first-of-line vessels. This is extremely important, as close technical co-operation is needed during the period of construction. It is normal for the customer, be it the Royal Navy or the overseas customer, to place a team with the manufacturer during the period of construction, and the design evolves in that period. Often expensive changes take place in design during the period of construction. Immediate and important decisions, involving large amounts of money, are frequently needed to be taken at short notice by the warship manufacturer during the period of manufacture. Anything that damages the close local control of the warship manufacturers will be damaging for the industry.
      Manufacturers of warships have an exceptionally successful export record. Vosper Thorneycroft alone has exported 60 different orders to 29 different countries totalling about £300 million in value

      951
      since 1960. It attributes that achievement to expert and flexible management, working with a skilful and willing work force, and to a strong team of designers of wide experience who rapidly and convincingly produce the designs of the ships that their customers require. In other words, it is a team effort. It tends to be a happy industry. It is hard working and has a good labour relations record.
      Thornycroft has won a record number of Queen's awards to industry. Its turnover since 1966 has risen from £6½ million to £57 million a year. Its profit has risen from £400,000 to about £4 million this year. About 70 per cent. of its products are exported. However, the Government propose to pay only £4 million in compensation when they nationalise that company.
      The important point about warship manufacture is the range of customers especially overseas customers. The Vosper Thornycroft record is impressive It provided four cruisers for Brazil, a corvette to Ghana, three fast patrol boats to Kenya, 24 fast patrol boats to Malaysia and two destroyers to Iran. The geographical spread of customers is mirrored by the political backgrounds of the régimes to which they are being exported.
      I address my remarks especially to those who feel that a delicate conscience should govern the decision whether a building should take place. There are large numbers of countries to which orders are exported, the régimes in control of which may well not be approved. With the Government now seeking to bring increasing trade union involvement into management, I must ask the people working for the companies, through the Minister, whether they feel that their livelihood and the work they do should be under the possibly prejudicial hand of people who will seek to use political pressure to stop an order being fulfilled.
      There is another point of importance. The Minister of State will be well aware of this. There are currently being built in different yards in this country warships that are intended for customers who may be mutually antipathetic. I shall not name names; it would be inappropriate and harmful for me to do so; but there are orders in hand in different companies whose destinations are countries the régimes of which might not agree, and
      952
      where the ships might be used against those manufactured by another company.
      Again, I must ask the people working for these companies, through the Minister, whether they feel that it would be damaging for the industry to be nationalised so that there was only one company where it would be difficult for manufacture to take place for different countries unless all the countries which were customers were happy with each other. The Minister will take on board that point. He knows that orders would have been lost if the industry had been nationalised.
      The effect of central control on the direction of orders would be disastrous in this industry. Vickers and Yarrow both operate in areas where unemployment is higher than in the Portsmouth and Southampton area. The temptation that a Government would find politically impossible to resist would be for the diversion of orders from an area of comparatively low unemployment to an area of higher unemployment. Indeed, that has happened. Already the Government have placed orders with Swan Hunter, despite the clearly stated policy of concentrating ship manufacture on the three main designated yards.
      Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that since before the turn of the century the Tyne shipbuilders have turned out some of the finest warships that have ever been built for this and many other countries? Does he recognise the insult that he pays to the shipbuilding workers of the Tyne when he suggests that they do not have the capability or the skills to build warships of the highest class, from frigates to battleships, if necessary?
      Mr. Viggers: I did not say the words that were attributed to me by the hon. Gentleman. Nor was I seeking to deprecate the activities of Swan Hunter, which I am sure is a first-class yard. Since the Booz-Allen report it has been clearly stated Government policy that warship manufacture will be concentrated on three main warship manufacturers. On that basis, those three manufacturers have built up their productive capacity. The Press report in which the announcement was made of the Swan Hunter orders made it clear that the Minister announced the Swan. Hunter orders after receiving a

      953
      delegation of six Labour Members of Parliament. The Government will beyond peradventure be subject to intense political pressure to divert orders from the three main designated manufacturers to other areas where they would like the orders and the work.
      Let each firm stand alone in terms of orders and let it compete fairly. Above all, for the sake of export orders, let not the industry be nationalised with the possible risk of diversion of orders from highly successful companies to those which have not been so successful in winning orders. The manner in which nationalisation control will be exercised also causes us alarm. I cite the example of the British Steel Corporation and its failure to take decisions on Shotton and Port Talbot. This is a record of dither and delay, which is clearly attributable to the nationalised industries.
      Decisions are taken for the wrong motives. There is clear evidence of favouritism in yielding to special pressure, whether in Scotland, Wales, or even in Kingston upon Hull, when hon. Members sought to bring pressure so that orders were placed there. There is a clear need for a Government who act on behalf of all the people.
      A special point is involved in warship manufacture. The Admiralty has a proud and jealous record of its own developments of projects. There is a catch phrase used in industry—"not invented here". If a project is invented by the Admiralty it is more likely to obtain ready backing. If the design is thought up somewhere else, it is uphill work to develop the project.
      6.30 p.m.
      Many of the brightest and most innovative ideas in warship manufacture were "not invented here" from the Admiralty's point of view and the ideas win through only because of the persistence and enthusiasm of the individuals and firms that develop them. This takes not only enthusiasm but money from the firms, and if the dead hand of nationalisation should fall on the industry, "not invented here" will become an article of faith.
      Nationalisation will not allow small firms to fritter away their resources on individual projects. There will be a
      954
      central planning agency and "not invented here" will become the spirit in which it will work. Anyone running a nationalised industry will be obliged to impose a planning policy to cut out a large amount of development by smaller firms.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to a word that has been said about decentralisation. If he had taken the trouble to read our amendment, which the House approved, he would know that all the speculations in which he has indulged are utterly without foundation—but, then, the hon. Gentleman has not been here before this amendment.
      Mr. Viggers: The Minister's last point is not true. He feels that the amendment will settle the matter, but I throw back at him the record of the British Steel Corporation and the deplorable statement by the Secretary of State for Industry on the failure to reach a decision on Port Talbot. Forget amendments: the Government must stand on their record, and it is pretty deplorable.
      The awkward squad who want to develop new ideas and push through proposals which do not fit in with the Admiralty thinking will get in the way in a nationalised industry and may find it more attractive to work elsewhere rather than in an octopus spawned by the Government.
      The financial record of warship manufacturers is outsanding. Vosper Thorneycroft has a magnificent record not only of profitability but of investment. Shareholders' funds increased from £12·9 million to £19·6 million last year, of which £4·9 million was accounted for by the revaluation of fixed assets, but a substantial amount resulted from the reinvestment of profits, which has been company policy for some years.
      Warship manufacturers do not want or need nationalisation. One is forced to the conclusion that the Government are nationalising the warship manufacturers to balance and pay for the nationalisation of the other shipyards that need Government help. Nationalisation will reduce local control and flexibility. There is no reason for it, and it will do nothing to improve profits or investment.

      955
      Overseas customers like dealing with individual firms. They like our manufacturers, and this leads to orders, which lead to jobs. I am surprised that the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) who have Vosper Thornycroft workers in their constituencies, are not here. No doubt they are engaged in important work elsewhere.
      The nationalisation of warship manufacturers will cause a loss of jobs to the nation. For the manufacturers in general and Vosper Thornycroft in particular, it will lead to a diversion of profitable enterprise and employment to other less successful yards.
      Mr. W. E. Garrett: I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) about the products of the Vosper Thornycroft group. It makes a wide range of fighting ships which are sold all over the world, and has a record of construction and design that is second to none.
      However, I feel that the hon. Member was being too pessimistic about the role of the warship building industry under the new corporation. None of the places that he mentioned has naval design teams as large as those in the North-East, particularly in the Swan Hunter group. That team had to work hard, on a competitive basis, to secure the recent orders for the group on the Tyne.
      I confess that I was one of the hon. Members who lobbied the Minister responsible for defence procurement in an attempt to obtain the contracts. We were successful not because of political favour or lobbying but because it was known that the design team in the group was there at the right time and the right price, and that the yard could start work immediately on these highly sophisticated ships.
      Countries all over the world have a high regard for the construction of British naval vessels. I do not think that nationalisation will diminish their enthusiasm for placing orders here. Most would even go to a totalitarian country if it provided the right ships at the right price. These countries will continue to come here whether the yards that we are discussing are included in or excluded from the State corporation.
      956
      I also wish that the hon. Members for Southampton were here, but I can assure the people in Vosper Thornycroft, in the Southampton area, and those in Yarrow, on the Clyde, that there will be plenty of work in naval construction, not merely for our own Navy but for others, and that even under a State corporation there will be a high level of competition. There will be an improvement in the capability of obtaining orders, because there will be much more research into the design of vessels. This research is already operating in some spheres. There is no need for gloom or worry. The naval side of the industry has a bright outlook.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) is more expert than I on shipbuilding and he will confirm that the workers, management and designers in the new corporation will be good enough to get out and win orders.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: I support the amendment, and shall wish to emphasise some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
      I should like to say first to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that other shipbuilders can of course build warships, but the three yards with which we are concerned in the amendment do not construct any merchant ships. They are specialist warship builders. They are in a different category from other yards, and nationalisation is likely to damage the essential service that they give to our national defence effort and to exports.
      Warship building is a very specialised type of shipbuilding, requiring large design teams and quality control and sales organisations quite beyond those needed in the less specialised sector. It is a special part of the industry, and there are good reasons why it should not be nationalised.
      The first reason is especially important at present. About 60 per cent. of all orders for naval vessels placed by foreign governments come to Great Britain. This important contribution to our balance of trade surely cannot be overlooked by the Government.
      It is questionable whether foreign Governments would be as willing to place orders with British State-owned yards as they are with British companies. We

      957
      have to remember that the commercial basis of and the secrecy built into contracts is a factor of which foreign Governments must take account. It is obviously essential to incorporate foreign equipment in warship design where overseas governments place orders. This must be a matter of the greatest possible secrecy to the Governments concerned. They must have complete confidence in that secrecy being maintained by the firms with which they place contracts. They need not necessarily wish our own Government to be aware of the full detail.
      My second point is to draw attention to the progressive and continuing improvement in the volume and profitability of export sales. We have to remember that warship building was isolated or drawn away from the rest of British shipbuilding at the time of the Booz-Allen Report. It seems to me likely that there will be an increasing need to rely on exports than there was in the past.
      Let me try to make that more plain. In the recent Defence Review, it seemed to some of us that the resources available for warship building or for maintaining employment in warship building yards were not to be very high and that there would be considerable concern about whether sufficient resources were available to maintain our own defences on what was believed to be the necessary level. If that is true, Government supporters cannot have it both ways. If they believe it right, in expenditure cuts, to reduce the amount of money spent on defence, they cannot then expect full employment in our warship building yards.
      That brings me back to my first point, which is that the 60 per cent. of export orders that we now complete in our British yards will have to be increased still further. Therefore, consideration for foreign Governments placing orders here is perhaps higher than it has ever been since the 1920s. I hope that hon. Members who take a different view from me on defence will remember that.
      I come, then, to my third point. In supplying the Royal Navy, the Government would be trading with themselves. I recall using the same argument in relation to former efforts at nationalisation.
      958
      I have never thought it a very good idea to have no competition between the person placing the order and the person making the goods. It will be said that as there are such massive grants it does not really matter, but I do not accept that. I think that there is room for considerable competitive spirit between orderer and builder. In trading with themselves, the Government are likely to damage the economic sense of the business, as there is not the same imperative need to arrive at realistic contracts.
      Perhaps I can divert for a moment and illustrate what I mean by discussing briefly the position between the present Government and Govan Shipbuilders. It is well known, from exchanges in this House in recent weeks, that contracts have been taken on at a wholly uneconomic rate from a foreign Government in order to sustain employment. It may be that that has merit in cases where the situation is as bad as it would have been in Govan Shipbuilders had we not obtained these foreign orders from Kuwait, but the three yards with which we are dealing in this amendment are not in that position; they are in precisely the reverse position. They are earning for the country valuable contracts and they are carrying them out profitably, to the benefit of the country.
      6.45 p.m.
      In nationalisation, damage will undoubtedly prove to be caused, amongst other factors, by the removal of control from the man on the spot who is in the yard to the distant policy-making body. On this amendment you would not allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rehearse any of the arguments already put forward about distribution, to which the Minister of State referred. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said earlier, we have very little faith in the breakdown of huge corporations. The Minister of State will have achieved a miracle which even he might be modestly hesitant to recommend at this stage if he thinks that, through the shipbuilding corporation, he will achieve the breakdown of bureaucracy which we have not seen so far in nationalised industries.
      There will also be a slowing down of technological advance. This is a very important factor. Throughout our long debates on this Bill, questions have been asked about the way in which such

      959
      matters would be handled, and whether each yard would continue to do its own research and development. But we are not really assured, because the Minister of State simply does not know. In this respect, he is in the happy position of being able to shrug his shoulders and point out that there is a corporation building up. My point is that it will probably build up much too large and be a much more substantial body than we want to see.
      It is clear that the Government want to retain the profitable part of our industry—as profitable as it is now. I have heard Government supporters express the view that they wish to nationalise industries that are profitable because to date they have been able only to nationalise industries which, broadly speaking, are unprofitable. I have pointed out before that our shipbuilders—especially our warship builders and, in this case, Yarrows—have already had the experience of being taken into the amalgam that dragged them down from profitability. They have now regained a remarkable degree of profitability, and in no way will I support their inclusion in the nationalisation provisions. The three warship builders that we are considering have had quite sufficient changes in recent years. A further change at this stage would be very damaging. Once again they would be amalgamated with merchant shipbuilders which, throughout the country and throughout the Western world, are having a very difficult time.
      I shall not go further into the question of the profitability of our warship builders, but, as I have said, there are considerable national assets in their success, in terms of advantage to our balance of payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport spoke of the investment made by Vosper Thornycroft. We have also to consider the investment made by Yarrows. Government supporters tend to concentrate their interest on the grants which have been made to the yard. However, apart from those grants and apart from the naval construction orders, the firm of Yarrows has invested many millions of pounds and now has an extremely up-to-date yard. That is no doubt due in part to Government grants, but part is due to the investment of considerable moneys from the firm's own resources. It cannot be
      960
      charged with earning profits on money paid over to it in grant form.
      I have said before, as I said 10 years ago in this House, when the first amalgamation was suggested after the Geddes Report, that we simply cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. We have this tiny element of strength within the British shipbuilding industry. All I am asking the House to do is to support these amendments, so that the strong shall retain their strength and be the national asset that I believe them to be.
      Mr. John Evans: I shall not detain the House long on those amendments because, frankly, I am amazed by them. I should very much like to know whether the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) is supporting these amendments or wishes us to oppose them. To be honest, I am a little doubtful whether I should go into the Lobby with the Tory Party and support it on these amendments.
      We have not actually faced the consequences of what would happen if the Government were to accept this amendment or were defeated on a vote on it; because the hon. Lady and others opposite have spoken of political pressure being used to persuade the Government of the day to transfer naval orders from Yarrow, Vickers and Vosper's to areas like Tyne and Humberside. If these firms were not taken into public ownership or were left out of public ownership, the political pressure on a Labour Government would be absolutely intolerable because the whole northern and Scottish groups of MPs would be pressing them constantly to ensure that Royal Navy orders were placed in publicly-owned yards. Rather than saving the yards by taking them out of public ownership, I suggest we are threatening them very much by suggesting that they should not be taken out of public ownership.
      In considering the question of orders for the Royal Navy I recall serving a part of my apprenticeship in a warship, the "Albion", and I know a little about warship construction. I well recall that that ship was in Swan Hunter's so long, because of constant changes in design. that some apprentices—fitters, boilermakers, painters and electricians—served their entire five-year apprenticeship on it.

      961
      It was said that when the ship finally left the Swan Hunter yard the band played "Will ye no come back again?". Those who have some knowledge of warship construction will know that it is the fattest, healthiest, most profitable form of shipbuilding order one can get; because, frankly, tender prices for warship construction are meaningless. As has been said here, design changes almost weekly, sometimes even daily, so that the tender price is quite meaningless, and there is is always a fat profit to be made on warships.
      It is not surprising that companies like Vosper's, Vickers and Yarrow went over almost exclusively to warship building, which is very profitable. They have been able to invest some of their profits in modernising their yards, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that those profits came largely from the taxpayer, because in the main it is the taxpayers who are placing the orders. I recognise that these firms have export orders, but I am making the point that the backbone of the yards and their prosperity have come from orders from the Royal Navy, and not only warships in the accepted sense but fleet oilers and other Ministry of Defence vessels, orders for which have been placed with these yards.
      People on the Tyne—and I now represent a Mersey constituency—could not understand why we did not get a fairer crack of the whip on Ministry of Defence orders for warships. In the unlikely event of this amendment succeeding, that will be greatly welcomed by some shipbuilders in other yards because I say here in this House that undoubtedly we shall use maximum political pressure on the Government to transfer orders for these yards, if they are not publicly owned, into publicly-owned industry. Warship orders have always been political. It has always been the case that orders have been given or ships sent for repair to places where unemployment is heavy. That has happened constantly since particular areas were stricken with heavy unemployment.
      I recall one vessel, a fleet oiler named "Iona" which was in and out of the Tyne so much that it was generally recognised it did not need a pilot or tugs and could manoeuvre itself alongside the jetty. Every time unemployment started to rise the Government of the
      962
      day, whether Labour or Conservative, would send warships, fleet oilers or Ministry of Defence ships to the Tyne for repair during periods of heavy unemployment.
      An hon. Gentleman opposite talked on and on about nationalisation and centralised control, and made a strong point about the decentralisation proposals involved in the Bill. These will be successful because the shipyard workers themselves will ensure that they are, but orders for the Admiralty are completely centrally controlled, because they come from Bath. Many times shipyard workers have to wait days or weeks for designs, drawings or confirmation of changes to come from Bath. To use a classic phrase, they are waiting for "the man from Bath". Therefore, when we talk of local control we are not talking of the warship building industry, because that is centrally controlled and in the main is operated from Bath. I submit to the House that it is not in the best interests of the industry to suggest that these firms should be taken out.
      Finally, on the export field, it is understandable that we have built a very strong, worthwhile business building warships for the Royal Navy so that in this field the yards have acquired expertise which they can use in obtaining orders from foreign Governments. I see no danger whatsoever that any of these orders will be transferred from these yards. That is simply trying to throw a scare into my hon Friends from Southampton, who will not be influenced by it. There is no danger whatever to these yards. I expect a fairer spread of orders, but I submit that those yards which have built up expertise in this field will continue to use that expertise. I expect a fairer spread of orders throughout the British shipbuilding industry, and I mean orders for all types of ships throughout the United Kingdom; because if we are to save our industry, undoubtedly we need a national plan. This Bill will give us that, and I am sure that the prosperity of yards like Vosper's, Vickers and Yarrow will continue even more under a nationalised setup than under a private enterprise set-up.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Neville Trotter: As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport

      963
      (Mr. Viggers) has pointed out, we are talking here of a success story. These three are among the most successful private enterprise firms in Britain. They have given the Royal Navy a magnificent fleet and they are the leaders in exports of naval vessels in the whole world. If one looks through the Fleet lists of the world one finds that throughout the whole range, from the Argentine to Zanzibar, practically all the countries in the free world build their navies or other vessels in these three yards. It is a remarkable story of good design, good ships, and, obviously, competitive prices. It is a story that has resulted in profits for these companies, and very substantial advantage in balance of payments terms for the whole of Britain.
      One must start opposition to the nationalisation of these three companies, therefore, by asking what possible further advantage can come from changing an existing success story. I can see no reason whatsoever to suppose that any good can come from these three firms passing into public ownership; and all the probabilities are that this will be a story of disaster. As for the effect of nationalisation on the Royal Navy, when the Russian destroyer "Obraztsovy" called at Portsmouth it was noted that an air conditioner of Japanese make was installed in the wardroom. I do not know whether we shall ever reach the stage when the Royal Navy will have to depend on Japan for part of its equipment.
      Certainly I would have thought that the effect of nationalisation on the Royal Navy's three principal specialist suppliers could only be disastrous. As my hon. Friend, the Member for Gosport pointed out, it is essential that these three companies should retain efficient independent design teams.
      One only has to look at the difference between the Type 21 and Type 22 frigates. The Type 21 frigate was designed by Vosper and Yarrow. It was built on time at a fraction of the cost of the Type 22 frigate, designed by the Navy Department's team at Bath. This is just one example of private enterprise producing an excellent ship on time, and far more cheaply.
      Then there is the question of cost benefit to the public. I see no way in
      964
      which public ownership of yards can bring any advantage. We shall see two public bodies arguing with each other—the Royal Navy versus British Shipbuilders. In that sort of argument only an optimistic person could believe that public funds would figure very much. There would not be the keenness of discussion and negotiation there has been in the past when the question of the survival of these three yards as private enterprises was at stake. The taxpayer will find himself paying more for ships for the Royal Navy.
      I do not think that hon. Members fully understand the effect of the rundown of the Navy as is being planned and executed by the present Government. On 26th April I asked the Minister of State for Defence for an estimate of the number of people engaged in the construction of warships for the Royal Navy. His answer was that there were about 20,000. On 8th April I asked for an estimate of the number of jobs which would be lost as a result of the reduction in equipment orders, particularly in the Royal Navy. He replied:
      "The Defence Review reductions in the Royal Navy's shipbuilding programme will mean that about 11,000 direct job opportunities in the shipbuilding industry will be lost over the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 8th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 285.]
      The first answer referred to 20,000 on warship building, so there is a staggering reduction ahead of warship builders as a result of the defence cuts. And that is before the last cuts, a week ago.
      These three firms face very serious problems indeed for the future as a result of the Government's decision to cut defence expenditure, in the Navy particularly. Therefore, they will rely more than ever on miantaining export successes. If they are not successful in the export field there will be most serious problems, and a very substantial loss of jobs. With 11,000 jobs already at stake, we shall need to export more warships than ever before to maintain job numbers. The Minister of State seems to think that State ownership will help to increase exports. Some of his hon. Friends share that view. They must be supreme optimists of all time if they believe that. The ordinary man in the street would not agree with them for one moment.
      Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Member aware that, under State ownership, British Leyland is the biggest exporter this country has?
      Mr. Trotter: But it was the biggest to begin with, and the situation has not changed yet. British Leyland has not been going on very long under State ownership.
      I am not suggesting that there will be any change in 12 months or so, but over five or six years, there could be a very substantial change in the export orders of the three firms I have mentioned. I cannot see confidence being retained by foreign Governments.
      In the past we have seen the extraordinary antics of Government supporters over the countries we should supply with ships. A survey ship was built for South Africa by one of these firms. Would the Government allow that to be sold when the firm is nationalised?
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Member aware that in the 1950s and early 1960s we could have had many orders for ships from the Eastern bloc but under the Battle Act we were not allowed to supply them? So the fact that we do not agree with the Governments of some countries and do not supply them with ships does not make much difference.
      Mr. Trotter: Is the right hon. Member referring to sales to the Warsaw Pact countries? I hope that Labour Members are not actually suggesting that we should build ships for the Russian navy. I do not think they would want them, because they have large resources of their own.
      Mr. Fernyhough: They were two tankers built in Hebburn yard in my constituency in 1950. These two oil tankers were not allowed to be delivered to Poland, although Poland had paid for them. The Americans stopped us from selling the tankers to Poland, even though Polish seamen had come to take delivery.
      Mr. Trotter: They must have been Navy tankers.
      Mr. Fernyhough: They were oil tankers.
      Mr. Trotter: Certainly there have been sales of merchant ships to the Soviet
      966
      Union in recent times. I do not think any hon. Members would suggest that we should sell warships to the Soviet Union. They have enough of their own. They are just starting to produce aircraft carriers when we are getting ready to dispose of "Ark Royal".
      Foreign Governments will begin to look around to find a more stable situation in which to place their warship orders. They will want a situation without political interference and control of the shipyards.
      There is the question of the supply of spares. In maintaining the modernity of a ship after it is built it is much more advantageous to return for refits to the country in which that ship was originally built.
      Then there is a question of bureaucracy in State ownership. The image of State-Britain abroad is one of a very inefficient outfit. This is the pattern one finds as one travels around the world, and to apply it to the manufacture of warships will lead to our being out on the deal.
      Another question is that of muddle. For example, what shall we see on the Clyde? Shall we see Govan and Yarrow reorganised as they were? I suspect that, if they are locked together in that way, Yarrow will no longer be with us. People working in Yarrow would not want to be brought back in a forced marriage with their colleagues in Govan up the road.
      There is also the question of names. The federation wishes to see all the names put in the dustbin. Apparently it wishes to be referred to as British Shipyards—Tyne, British Shipyards—Solent, or British Shipyards—Clyde, depending on the area of the country. That would be the height of folly, because Vosper, Vickers and Yarrow are world-famous names, particularly for warships. To scrap them would be the height of folly.
      The Government believe in industrial democracy and the Secretary of State for Energy says he believes that no executive action should be taken in a State-owned organisation without the agreement of the work force. So if the trade union leaders in the shipyards say that a name should be scrapped, even if that would be the height of folly, perhaps under the industrial democracy envisaged by the

      967
      Government the trade union leaders will get their way. We have no idea of the Government's views on that sort of issue. All that is still entirely in the air. If we scrap the names of Vickers, Yarrow and Vosper we shall be throwing away assets of immense value to this country.
      We have no idea of the organisation which is to be established under the new corporations. We do not know where the headquarters will be located, although the Government have had months in which to discuss that. We do not know whether there will be a specialist warship division, but it is only realistic to assume that, if a number of high-powered and expensive Chiefs are appointed at head office, they will want a considerable number of Indians beneath them to control.
      Whatever the Government may say at the moment, I believe that we shall see a very large headquarters organisation with certain gentlemen specialising in the control of warship building. There is the suggestion that, for the sake of peace in the provinces, there will be a geographical layer of administration, and that there will be the amalgamation of yards under individual management. All this is uncertain. After two and a half years in office, the Government have said nothing on these points.
      There is the possibility of work being directed. The Govan yard, for example, after some years of nationalisation, could get no orders without taking them at a massive loss which the Minister of State is, perhaps, unwilling or unable to quantify. It may be that in future orders will be diverted from Yarrow's up the river, to keep Govan going. Cammell Laird was one of the firms building Type 42 destroyers along with Swan Hunter and Vickers. Recently, two more Type 42 destroyers were put out for tender. Cammell Laird put in for one, and possibly two, because without them the company would be coming to the end of its naval work, but the orders went to Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft. Perhaps the Navy was told that the orders should go to those companies; but it is unlikely, in view of the unemployment on Merseyside, for there to be a ministerial decision deliberately to divert work away from the Mersey. Perhaps Cammell Laird lost the order because it could not match the price or delivery of its competitors.
      968
      What will be the future position? The head of British Shipbuilders is the present head of Cammell Laird, a gentleman of strong views who wishes to see the headquarters of the corporation placed in that backwater of British shipbuilding on the Mersey. Perhaps he will have similar views about where the work should go in future. What evidence does the work force at Vosper's, Yarrow, or even Vickers have that in future orders will not be diverted to Cammell Laird just because the chief executive of the corporation thinks it is a good idea.
      We have had no argument show that nationalisation will be of any advantage to these firms. The country cannot afford to nationalise these industries and those who work in them can ill afford it, either. There would be a saving of public funds if they were omitted from the nationalisation proposals. I am sure that the IMF would rejoice, and the Chancellor would find his problems that much reduced if the money were saved. These firms mus export to survive, and they are much more likely to do so if they remain in the efficient hands that have brought them to their present successful position.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. William Small: I hope that the Government will resist the amendment. It is an exercise in necrophilia—intercourse with the dead—and that will happen after the vote. I want to see the warship builders in the corral. My favourite television programme concerns a place called Shiloh, and that means "corral of peace". I want peace in industry.
      I know Yarrow very well and I can understand the loss of face felt by Sir Eric Yarrow under the nationalisation criteria. Throughout my time in this House I have been the big ear for Yarrow, lobbying Ministers. This place is one big pressure group, but where do the pressure groups come from after nationalisation? Tony Griffin will be the organising manager. Scott Lithgow builds submarines and warships on the Clyde, and Ross Belch is on record as saying that he will help to make the nationalised industry work.
      The reality of life is that the big nationalised group must be the recipient of defence orders. Yarrow has a tremendous record. If one goes to its yard, one might as well go to the United Nations.

      969
      It builds for the world. I do not see anything to stop that yard, or any other, from building for the world after nationalisation. There will be only a change of name.
      Perhaps it would be as well if I used less Greek than usual. Let me refer only to Pandora and, with her, Pyrrha and Deucalion, the brother and sister who threw their mother's bones over their shoulders. And so in the sense that these shipyards want to throw their bones out and remain outside the bigger group, they are making a big mistake.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: We have heard about Yarrow. I hope that hon. Members will not consider that I am being partial if I refer only to Scottish yards.
      On one side of the Clyde there is Yarrow and on the other is Govan Shipbuilders. At one time Yarrow was part of Govan and the organisation made a loss. Yarrow managed to get out, and since then, in the last four years or so, it has made a gross profit of £16 million with a net profit of £10 million. It has reinvested £8 million of that amount. It has increased its work force from 3,500 to 5,000. In other words, it has created a real and viable improvement. One of the prides of the world is to be able to say "That ship was built at Yarrow's". I do not believe that that record, that capacity and that skill will be sustained after nationalisation.
      To confirm me in that belief I had only to listen to the words of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who said that, after nationalisation, the Members of Parliament representing the Clyde and the Tyne would no longer need to fight one another for the orders; he said they would not need to badger the Government or the Ministry of Defence because there would be a fair spread of orders.
      Let us examine that philosophy. The Minister of State was responsible for steering through that crapulous Bill which claims as its ideal to make British industry more efficient and to remove over-manning. Let us consider the concept whereby we shall be fair to the yards of the Tyne and the Clyde. We shall say "One order for you, and one for you". Orders will be artificially created and granted, regardless of the
      970
      capacity of the yard to win, sustain and execute them. We shall introduce an element of inefficiency and bureaucracy. Who is to take this great decision?
      When the work forces on the Clyde who have taken pride in the success of their companies see work being sacrificed to some other yard called British Shipbuilders (Tyne) will they not come to their Members of Parliament and say "What about our jobs?" Will the Government say, as I. fear is the lesson of nationalisation, "However many orders you have or however many orders you have not, whatever profits you make or whatever losses you make, there is a philosophy of nationalisation which permits us, your big brother and your kind father, to guarantee your job and to guarantee from the bottomless sack of international money the funds required to sustain the enterprise however much it may fail."
      I have heard no argument to tell me that, when the yards are nationalised, they will be more efficient, more profitable and better employed, or that employment will increase. I have heard arguments that employment will be guaranteed, and that, regardless of the creative capacity of the yard, orders will be spread amongst the yards, but I have heard no word to suggest that the yards will be more efficiently or more imaginatively run.
      The yards will be run by bureaucracy. The instant decisions that have to be taken daily at Yarrow will take months. A decision will first have to be taken about which piece of bureaucracy shall decide. The country has a disease, easy to contract and difficult to cure, and that is the justification for bureaucracy. As soon as there is one tier, there is justification for a lower tier and another below that. That is what will happen.
      I regret that the great and proud quality that made Yarrow will be lost. We threw away the markets of Southern Africa. They were proud to say that their ships had been made in Yarrow. Now they are made in France. I cannot believe that there are many foreign countries which will order boats, sail them and say that they are proud that they were made in British Shipbuilders (Clyde). The Bill is destructive of a great craft in Scotland, and I regret that tonight we

      971
      shall purblind see the fate of British shipbuilding.
      Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition are telling us that it is inappropriate and unsuitable for warships to be manufactured under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, Controller of the Navy since 1971; educated at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; joined Royal Navy 1934; went to sea as a midshipman in 1939; war service in the East Indies, Mediterranean, Atlantic, North Russia and Far East; specialised in nagivation, 1944; Staff College, 1952; Imperial Defence College, 1963; Commander HMS "Ark Royal" 1964–65; Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Warfare) 1966–68; Flag Officer, Second-in-Command, Far East Fleet, 1968–69; Flag Officer, Plymouth, Commander, Central Sub Area Eastern Atlantic, and Commander Plymouth, Sub Area Channel, 1969–71; Commander 1951; Captain 1956; Rear-Admiral 1966; Vice-Admiral 1968; Admiral 1971. That has nothing to do with the manufacture of warships.
      Mr. Fairbairn rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman has tilted at his windmill. He has talked even more irredeemable rubbish than usual. I see that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—speaking for the shipyard workers of Hampstead—has come to reinforce the rubbish spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
      We are told by Opposition Members that this man, with this flimsy and irrelevant record, is inadequate to have anything to do with the building of warships. We are also told that it is inappropriate to have a publicly-owned warship building industry because the customers will not like it. Who are these customers? Are they private mariners? Are they enthusiasts who go around collecting warships as a hobby? No, they are Governments. The only people I know who buy warships are Governments, and they are publicly owned. It is an interesting concept of public ownership that the armed forces of foreign Governments will be repelled by the idea of buying warships manufactured by the publicly-owned British Shipbuilders under Admiral Griffin.
      Mr. Viggers rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way. Had it not been for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) would have talked the greatest rubbish in the debate. I see that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—speaking for the shipyard workers of Blaby—has come in. I do not know whether his mask is slipping.
      The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, the hon. Member for Gosport—who has taken no interest in the Bill until tonight—and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter)—who has taken a great and informed interest in the Bill—have all disregarded the statements made over and over again by the Organising Committee and in the House by Ministers that it is almost certain that the component companies of British Shipbuilders will retain their present names. All the fanciful romancing about British Shipbuilders (Tyne) and British Shipbuilders (Clyde) served to fill up the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who have taken no interest in the Bill until its final stages, but it is completely inaccurate.
      Opposition Members appear to subscribe to the theory that only loss-making companies shall be taken into public ownership. That is what the Conservatives did when they were in power. They nationalised Rolls-Royce when it went bankrupt. They nationalised Govan Shipyards—which is held up to us as such a paragon of failure. They did it. They were the people who had four years of nationalising loss-makers, and they believe that a Socialist Government should nationalise only loss-makers.
      The Government do not accept that proposition. We do not believe it is right that losses should be nationalised and profits "profitised". Nor do we accept a shipbuilding industry that is privately profitable on the basis of public funding.
      It would be extremely illogical if, in taking the shipbuilding industry into public ownership, we were to exclude precisely those companies that are most dependent on the Government for their survival. Yet that is what the amendment seeks to do.

      973
      Hon. Members have placed great stress on the warship building sector. The Government believe that as a nation we must have an overall plan for our national shipbuilding resources. Arguments advanced of the importance of warship building are arguments for including this sector in the future public sector.
      7.30 p.m.
      The significance of warship building to the industry is clear. In a booklet commissioned by two of the warship builders named in the Bill—namely, Vosper Thornycroft Limited and Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd, entitled "The Special Case For The Naval Shipbuilders"—it is claimed that in five years the two companies have secured export orders worth £273 million. The three warship builders give employment to 20,000 men. Those are all good reasons for vesting the companies in British Shipbuilders and not for excluding them.
      Great play has been made of the fact that a considerable part of the profits of these companies comes from export orders, but it is not trumpeted so loudly that those orders are obtained only because the warship builders are major Ministry of Defence contractors. It is on that that their standing as naval builders depends. The fact that their products are acceptable to the Royal Navy means that they are acceptable to other nations' navies. In addition—this confutes what many Opposition Members have been claiming—they obtain a great deal of assistance from the Ministry of Defence in winning orders. That is the purpose of MOD Defence Sales. Construction grants provided under the Industry Act 1972, enacted by the Conservative Government, were paid on export warship contracts but not on Ministry of Defence orders. That is a point that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) got completely wrong in Committee.
      The right hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who has explained why she cannot be here, and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire dealt in great detail with Yarrows. Anyone would think that the company was the epitome of sturdy, independent private enterprise. In fact, the company was
      974
      rescued from insolvency by a Ministry of Defence loan of £4½ million in 1971. Sir Eric Yarrow's letter to shareholders on 12th March 1971 indicated that the loss for the 10 months ending 30th June 1970 would be about £3 million.
      The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced to Parliament on 10th February 1971 that it was the Government's decision that the Ministry of Defence would make a loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited towards meeting its requirements for working capital. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "Both Yarrow (Shipbuilders) and UCS have encountered difficulties in recent years and both face problems of serious cash deficiency."—[Official Report, 10th February 1971, Vol. 811, c. 809.]
      If it had not been for Government aid, the company's shares would now be completely worthless. Without public money Yarrows would not be in a position to receive any compensation.
      Opposition Members have talked about the profitability of Yarrows, but let us look at what lies behind the profits. Pre-tax profits include over £4 million in Government grants, including £2·8 million in construction grants and £1·2 million in regional employment premium. To get a clearer view of the picture, we need to look at the six years from 1970 to 1975. The 1970 results showed post- and pre-tax losses of £2·72 million. Cumulative pre-tax profits for the six years were £13·93 million. Post-tax profits were £7·59 million. Government grants in this period amounted to £4·36 million.
      Mr. Nigel Lawson: Tell us about taxation.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is gibbering on so much that he does not listen to what is said.
      When the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East spoke in Committee in February 1971 about Yarrows profits she conveniently excluded 1970 from her calculations. In that year certain provisions for future losses were set up—provisions that contributed £1·45 million to profitability in the five subsequent years as those provisions were written back. It is also a fact that net interest received,

      975
      after deducting interest paid, contributed £1·8 million of profits during the years in question. This is a perfectly proper credit to profits; it is not an operating profit.
      The case put up by the Opposition is bogus. The case for the nationalisation of the warship companies is unanswerable, and I hope that the House will support the Government in that proposition.
      Mr. Tom King: As we draw towards the end of these long sessions on the Bill, we get to know the Minister of State better and better. One of the Kaufman laws that we now recognise is that the weaker the case, the greater the abuse and the more supercilious the approach.
      The hon. Gentleman, speaking as he does with great authority for the shipyard workers of Manchester, Ardwick —that is the way in which he referred to several of my hon. Friends—was unwise to refer to Admiral Griffin. He brought him into the debate; no one else did. The admiral is someone with distinguished naval service, but unfortunately—the Minister of State raised the matter—he has never built a ship in his life. He is now to be Chairman of British Shipbuilders.
      I am bound to say that there have been criticisms by a Select Committee of certain of the ways in which warships were ordered by the procurement department. I thought that the Minister of State made a singularly prolonged non-point when he read out the distinguished war service of someone whom the Opposition have not criticised. However, in all that record of service there is no experience of shipbuilding.
      The whole point of the debate on the warship builders—I hope that this is the concern of all hon. Members—is whether those who work in the industry are likely to be better or worse off when nationalisation takes place. I shall explain why we believe that the future of the yards, the prosperity of the people who work in them, the prosperity of the regions where they are located and, therefore, the national interest would be better served if they remained independent.
      The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said he could promise that there would be plenty of orders both for specialist warship builders and for other
      976
      yards in the United Kingdom. I do not know what special access to the placing of shipyard orders the hon. Gentleman has. I do not know how he is able to override the projections that I think are accepted by the Government of a worldwide slump in shipbuilding and a 100 per cent. excess of capacity over demand. At present there is twice as much capacity as projected demanded over the coming years. In those circumstances, a promise of ample orders is obviously unrealistic.
      The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans)—I notice that neither the hon. Member for Wallsend nor the hon. Member for Newton has been in the Chamber to hear the Minister or myself—said that there would be a fairer spread of orders. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) wisely absented himself from the debate at that stage. What do his hon. Friends mean? A fairer spread of orders in terms of someone who works for Swan Hunter can only mean fewer orders elsewhere. Surely the logic of that is inevitable.
      When we hear where the real threats to employment lie, we must be struck by the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). He quoted figures from an official parliamentary answer. According to that answer, there are now 20,000 people engaged in warship building. The likely job losses forecast by the Government in their own answer amount to 11,000 over the next 10 years as a result of the defence cuts. If we look to find where the damage to these industries is likely to come from, we find that the real responsibility lies with the defence cuts which have been announced. If that is true, the only hope for the yards lies with an even greater export achievement.
      The main burden of our case is that export orders are likely to be damaged by a nationalised corporation. The Minister of State thought that he had made a telling point when he said "How can people object to buying from a Government when most of those who buy warships are Governments?" That might sound a quite good point until one thinks about it. It is the experience of all who work in the industry—I do not think that the Minister of State has had that privilege any more than I have, but I refer to my experience and intelligence —that Governments prefer not to deal

      977
      directly Government to Government in these matters, some of which are confidential.
      Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
      Mr. King: No, I shall not give way as we are against the guillotine.
      Moreover, it is possible at any time for Governments—
      It being twenty minutes to Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th] and the Resolution [27th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 303, noes 313.
      [For Division List No. 299 see col. 1037]
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 258, in page 75, leave out lines 19 to 26.—[Mr. Tom King.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 310.
      [For Division List No. 300 see col. 1047]
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 247, in page 75, leave out line 20.—[Mr. Tom King.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 311.
      [For Division List No. 301 see col. 1047] Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 259, in page 75, leave out lines 28 to 30.—[Mr. Torn King.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 310.
      [For Division List No. 302 see col. 1051]
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 219, in page 77, line 4, at end insert:
      'and
      (d) on 21st November 1975 the number of persons employed by that company in any city or town engaged exclusively in the business of repairing, refitting, converting or maintaining ships exceeded 300, provided that the company is not a member of the same group of companies as a shipbuilding company falling within the description in paragraph 2 above '—[Mr. Gwynfor Evans.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 304. Noes 311.
      [For Division List No. 303 see col. 1057]
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I now propose to put the Question on all amendments moved by a Member of the Government down to Schedule 7, Amendments Nos. 197 to 208. With the agreement of the House, I propose to put one Question on all of them.

    Schedule 3

      VESTING OF ASSETS OF UNDERTAKINGS IN ACQUIRED COMPANIES
      Amendments made: No. 197, in page 78, line 14, after second 'the', insert 'associated'.
      No. 198, in page 78, line 25, leave out from which ' to was ' in line 26 and insert:
      'an associated privately owned company'
      No. 199, in page 78, line 37, leave out any 'officer of' and insert:
      'a person holding a particular post in'.
      No. 200, in page 78, line 40, leave out from 'the' to 'company' in line 42 and insert:
      'person holding the most nearly equivalent post in the acquired'.—[Mr. Varley.]

    Schedule 4

      ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ASSETS
      Amendments made: No. 201, in page 79, line 42, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 202, in page 80, line 26, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 203, in page 80, line 31, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 204, in page 80, line 47, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 205, in page 80, line 50, at end insert
      and
      (aa) in calculating the price for which they were to be sold, any charges to which they were subject had been disregarded, and'.
      No. 206, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 207, in page 81, line 45, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.
      No. 208, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'notice of acquisition' and insert 'Schedule 4 notice'.—[Mr. Varley.]

    Schedule 7

      PROCEDURE ETC. OF ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Trotter: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 245, in page 91, line 4, at end add—
      '14. The decisions of an Arbitration Tribunal, and the reasons therefore, as to the value of the compensation to be issued for any security shall if the relevant stockholders' representative agrees be made available to the stockholders' representative for any other security'.
      Unless this amendment is carried, decisions of the arbitration tribunal will not be available to those taking part—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman say that he "formally" moved the amendment. The usual custom is that an hon. Member formally moves an amendment, and that is it. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would then sit down.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say anything of the kind.
      Mr. Trotter: I move the amendment, and I do so with complete informality.
      980
      In view of the Government's provisions for the computation of compensation, it is reasonable to assume that there will be arbitration proceedings in each of these 43 cases. It is necessary, therefore, that a pattern should be established and that it should be known to all those taking part as representatives of stockholders in the discussions before arbitration tribunals.
      We know that a considerable period of time is likely to elapse before all the hearings can take place. We know that there are 43 sets of books to be examined by a firm of auditors on behalf of the Government. Therefore, it is important that we should have the speediest possible arbitration hearings when that stage is reached, to determine the amount of compensation.
      It will be of great assistance to those representing stockholders if they are aware of decisions on previous hearings in other cases brought under the Act. That is the purpose of this amendment, so that if any stockholders' representative in any one case agrees, there should be made available to the stockholders of other companies the reasons given by the arbitration tribunal for its findings, to provide a pattern for use in establishing a precedent between cases.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but his amendment will not achieve anything that cannot already be achieved, because under the existing Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 and under the appropriate regulations governing the procedure on tribunals, for which provision is made in paragraphs 5(1) and 10(1) of Schedule 7 and also in Clause 42(10) of this Bill, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal will be included in Schedule 1 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971; so that not only does this Act require tribunals listed in Schedule 1 to furnish interested bodies with
      "a statement, either written or oral, of the reasons for the decision, if requested, on or before the giving or notification of decision, to state the reasons"
      but in addition to that, we intend to make regulations under Schedule 7 to achieve the result that the hon. Gentleman desires, in the same way as was done in the regulations governing the

      981
      conduct of the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal. In the light of the reasons that I have just listed, and also in the light of a letter written to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 28th April, I hope that he will now be able to ask leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Trotter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      8.53 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      In doing so I should like to say although this may not be the last occasion on which we discuss this Bill in this House —because, for example, another place may want to pass a minor amendment or two with which we shall have to deal —I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) for taking this Bill so far success, fully up to this Third reading stage. They and my hon. and right hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee must take credit for getting the Bill this far. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary had to bear the brunt of the 58 Committee sittings and the hundreds of hours of debate, and we have all come to admire not only their hard work but their skill and, not least, their stamina. When this Bill reaches the statute book, as it will, it will be my hon. Friends who not only deserve but will get the credit. They argued successfully for the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries during those debates throughout the consideration of the Bill.
      Public ownership is urgently needed for both industries, and it has been asked for by the workers in those industries. On Second Reading, I set out the case for taking the aircraft industry into public ownership. The need to combine the resources of the two main airframe companies is widely accepted. I believe that it is accepted by the Opposition. Ten years after the Plowden Committee's report, private enterprise has failed to bring that about. A merger under public ownership will improve public account-
      982
      ability in an industry that is heavily dependent on Government orders in the military field and on Government support in the civil field. Under public ownership it will be possible to take key strategic decisions on a coherent basis. This powerful case has never been challenged effectively.
      The need for the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation to combine their strengths is illustrated by the recent discussions between aircraft manufacturers in Europe and America about collaboration on future civil aircraft projects. These discussions have made a unified approach even more urgent. The British Aircraft Corporation has its Concorde and Jaguar links with France and its MRCA-Tornado links with Germany and Italy. Hawker Siddeley has its European Airbus links with Germany and France and its Harrier and other links with McDonnell-Douglas.
      Over recent months the stark reality has forced itself increasingly on the aircraft industry that the United Kingdom must speak with a single authoritative voice. We must sort out what project to back and which partners to work with, and we cannot do that while we are divided. We must combine our resources urgently.
      At last the companies have begun to work together in this sector, with the Organising Committee taking the initiative and giving the lead. The Organising Committee, which is now in business, provides a talented team to lead the industry at a critical time. It includes some of the ablest men in industry, and able and experienced men from the trade union movement and outside industry. All of them are committed to making a success of the industry after vesting day and they are hard at work in preparation.
      The case for nationalising the shipbuilding industry is overwhelming. Britain's shipyards have lost their formerly dominant position since the war. In 1955 our merchant ship output of 1·3 million gross registered tons was larger than that of any other country and amounted to 26 per cent. of the world total. In under 20 years after that, our share of the market in tonnage terms slipped to only 3·6 per cent.
      Management and unions now accept that to survive as a world shipbuilding

      983
      nation we must have a coherent shipbuilding strategy. Moreover, the problems of over-capacity in shipbuilding are now worse than they have been since the 1930s. New Orders for ships over the next five years are likely to fall far short of world capacity. In these circumstances, the case for a concerted national effort is overwhelming. In the Government's view, the public ownership proposals in the Bill offer the only satisfactory prospect of a unified national shipbuilding effort, and without a unified effort the industry will simply not survive.
      In ship repairing, there is a clear need for new investment in more modern facilities, for which Government funds will be essential. Without this modernisation, employment in the industry will undoubtedly decline.
      The most significant ship repairing units are those which are located on the main estuaries in Great Britain—fox example the Mersey, the Tyne, the Thames, the Bristol Channel, the Humber, Falmouth or the Lower Clyde. The Bill will bring into public ownership all the large ship-repairing companies located on the main estuaries. This will enable the corporation to produce a coherent strategy for the larger ship-repairing yards as a whole.
      Nationalisation of the specialist makers of slow-speed diesel marine engines is equally necessary, because they are dependent on the rest of the shipbuilding industry. The future survival and success of these companies are completely bound up with their role as makers of 80 per cent. of all engines supplied to the merchant shipbuilders named in the Bill.
      At the present difficult stage in the affairs of these industries, we must end uncertainty quickly. We have assembled a first-class team in the organising committee, which has made an outstandingly good start. We have begun a series of important tripartite discussions between Government, the Organising Committee and the trade unions in which we are looking at ways of tackling the problems of shipbuilding in a united way. But the Organising Committee cannot really get to grips with the problems confronting the industries until the Bill is on the statute book. Failure to achieve this would have serious consequences for all those
      984
      involved in shipbuilding, ship repair and related activities.
      One of the Bill's main themes is industrial democracy, and this is an aspect of the Bill which has been significantly extended on Report. Industrial democracy is central to the Bill in a number of ways. First, we decided to introduce the Bill partly as a result of the expressed wishes of the workers in the two industries, through their representative unions. Second, one of the social priorities of this Government is to bring about an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people. This measure is one part of the fulfilment of that priority in industry. Third, there is the plain fact that efficiency follows consent.
      Industrial democracy reflects one of the most hopeful themes of the nation's present mood. It is an opportunity to enlist the commitment and enthusiasm of workers, at all levels, to the industries of which they are a vital part. Participation and consent are at the heart of our strategy for the regeneration of British industry.
      It is right, therefore, that the most important changes to the Bill on Report have been made in the field of industrial democracy. The amendments, taken together, place a positive duty on the corporations to promote industrial democracy, to enter into consultations with the unions within three months of vesting on how it should be done, and to have regard to industrial democracy in drawing up their organisation and reviewing it periodically.
      The Bill already contained a requirement to include in each annual report a report on progress in promoting industrial democracy. These provisions clearly establish industrial democracy as one of the main terms of reference of the corporations. The Bill lays down a framework which will keep industrial democracy to the front of the corporations' minds, but it avoids thrusting down the industries' throats a particular structure which may not be suitable and which may not be what the workers in them favour.
      Yesterday evening I said that the Government were considering what they could do about the situation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol,

      985
      North-West (Mr. Thomas) in relation to staff associations when he spoke to Amendment No. 329, which sought to limit the definition of "relevant trade union" to CSEU unions.
      This is a complex matter. We have given careful and sympathetic consideration to the problem, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has authorised me to say that the Government agree that the general legislation relating to certification of independence is unsatisfactory and needs tightening up. The existing provisions result in certificates being granted in circumstances where there is a risk of their being used to upset stable collective bargaining arrangements and to create damaging inter-union disputes.
      Accordingly, we intend to take action at the earliest opportunity in response to this unsatisfactory situation by tightening the arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be consulting the main interested organisations, including the TUC and ACAS, about the form such action might properly take. I have informed the Chairmen of the two Organising Committees of the Government's intention, which affects them as well as other employers, and I shall invite them, like other employers, to take it into account in their own dealings with staff associations in their industries.
      In view of the Government's intention to take action on this general basis, we did not feel it right to accept Amendment No. 329, and I am sure that my hon. Friends, in the light of what I have said, will understand why.
      Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State is telling the House that once more the freedom of individual employees to decide how they want to be represented is to be curtailed in favour of a centralised system negotiated without any consultation by the TUC. The Secretary of State is saying that if people play the game Labour's way they can go on playing but that any other way will be legislated out of existence.
      Mr. Varley: That is an exaggeration of what I said, typical of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study what
      986
      I said. The general legislation relating to certification of independence is unsatisfactory and needs tightening up. The Government accept that and will take steps to do it in consultation with the organisations concerned.
      Public ownership of these two industries is needed if we are to have a coherent strategy for them. Public ownership will bring about the necessary structural change and will improve public accountability and the quality of decisions in important areas of the United Kingdom economy.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.6 p.m.
      Mr. Heseltine: After a timetable motion, it is customary not to spend a great deal of time on the Third Reading debate, so I shall be brief in the way that the Secretary of State has been brief.
      I hope that, like the Secretary of State, I can trespass on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a personal word of thanks to those of my colleagues who have borne such a remarkable load in opposing the Bill. It has been the longest Committee stage and the most protracted opposition to any Bill in the history of Parliament. That is an indication of our determination to use every constitutional means at our disposal to prevent the Bill reaching the statute book.
      I single out particularly, conscious that it is an invidious distinction, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who played a conspicuous part in Committee. While we have not agreed with a great deal of what the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, we have never disagreed with the way in which they said it, apart from one or two occasional lapses such as happen in any Committee. I utter a word of congratulation to the Secretary of State, who had the foresight and wisdom to entrust the Committee proceedings to the Minister of State and thus avoid for himself the 58 sittings.
      The speech made by the Secretary of State is typical of speeches made by every Labour Minister on moving the Second Reading or Third Reading of Bills to nationalise industry after industry. Exactly the same words are to be found enshrined in the Hansard record of those occasions—the need for public accountability and a more rational planning

      987
      mechanism, the need to encourage democracy in industry and so on. In reality, everyone who has taken an interest in the nationalised industrial sector of the British economy is all too well aware of the fine intentions that never work out in practice.
      There is no doubt that the present problems of the nationalised industrial sector are among the most severe facing our managerial and industrial economy. We have not found a method of giving it the clear sense of purpose that is required. That is because the very generalities with which the statutes are built preclude managements from knowing those things that are expected of them. The removal of any of the constraints on free enterprise activity in commercial terms, or in financial disciplines, have meant inevitable recourse to the taxpayer on an ever-increasing scale. That has been the reality, and totally absent from it has been any progress or any sense of natural planning worthy of the name.
      In industry after industry there has been a sense of drift, punctuated only by improvisation by various Governments who have usually been about to be overwhelmed by crises in the industries themselves. I accept that the price control impost of 1972 is an example of the political activity to which all Governments have been forced in one way or another, and it has undoubtedly been harmful to the nationalised industries. The conclusion that we should draw is that industry should be kept at arm's length from politicians so that such a situation is far harder to bring about.
      I had not anticipated—I doubt whether anyone else in the House had—that the Secretary of State would seek to use Third Reading to make an announcement about the curtailment of staff associations. All of us who are involved in industry politically have spent much time speaking to representatives of trade unions and staff associations. There is no doubt that in the aerospace industry many thousands of workers—in some cases the majority of employees in a company—have decided voluntarily to join staff associations. They have done so as a matter of choice, and that choice has been exercised freely. Individual citizens have felt that staff associations can meet their legitimate aspirations
      988
      more effectively than a trade union in the conventional sense.
      Mr. Doug Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has referred to staff associations and to people joining them freely. He has suggested that they are not dominated by employers. Will he explain why the rules of the British Aerospace Staff Association were drawn up by a Mr. Mitchell, who is the executive director of Hawker Siddeley? He was not only the first secretary but the first chairman. The association's head-quarters are situated at Hawker Siddeley, Kingston. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that?
      Mr. Heseltine: The important matter is that there is legislation to govern the registration of staff associations. In fact, several associations have complied with the existing legislation, which is designed specifically to ensure that they are not dominated by management and that they are genuinely independent. Under that legislation, some associations have been able to satisfy those who question whether they are genuinely independent. Therefore, they have begun to establish for themselves a real presence in terms of being representative of the people in the industry. The result has been complaints by unions—for example, the union of which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) is a member and, I assume, an active recruiter—that the associations are rivalling the activities of the unions. Pressure has been brought to bear on the Government that the law should be changed to preclude the right to opt for staff associations.
      That is what is happening. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight. That is capitulation of the worst sort to outside union pressure. We are not dealing with opposition to trade unionism, but it is unquestionable in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself that people should be allowed to choose the organisations that shall represent them. It is intolerable, when they opt for staff associations, that the power of the trade union establishment should be brought to bear on this weak Government to obilterate their legal rights to behave in that way. That is what the Secretary of State has done from that Dispatch Box tonight.

      989
      I should like to place on record the five reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill tonight.
      First, its very existence over the last three years has caused immeasurable harm to the two industries principally concerned. I have listened to the Secretary of State talk about the need to end uncertainty. It is curious why the ending of uncertainty should be entirely at his timing. The right hon. Gentleman was happy to create the uncertainty three years ago; to introduce the Bill in the last Session of Parliament and then not to proceed with it, but to allow the uncertainty to remain; to proceed with the Bill at a most leisurely pace; and, at the very end of this three-year process, to argue that there is a need to end uncertainty.
      As the Labour Party has created the uncertainty, not only in these two industries but in industry after industry that it has added to its shopping list as soon as an industry comes off the top and passes into public ownership, I should have thought that "uncertainty" was hardly the word that the Secretary of State would want to use to describe his preoccupation.
      The fact that uncertainty is damaging was proved beyond peradventure in the deal that was done with Marathon, because the precise need for that deal was to ensure that there was no uncertainty hanging over that company. The thing that characterised Marathon was that it was an overseas company which had the right not to come to this country. In orde to ensure that it did not exercise that right, the Labour Party in opposition, was prepared to do a deal to remove the uncertainty, in spirit, by turning this measure into a Hybrid Bill.
      I believe that it is arguable and demonstrable that the uncertainty that was clear in the case of Marathon, and was therefore removed, existed with the other 43 companies, listed in the schedule, which have acted in the way that companies act when faced with uncertainty —namely, to hold back on their decisions and to cut back on their investment programmes, to the incalculable harm of the companies and industries and the employees within them. I believe that that is what has happened and that it
      990
      is the total responsibility of the Labour Party.
      Mr. John Evans rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: I shall be coming to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) at the end of my second point. I shall give way to him at that point, because he happens to be enshrined in my notes.
      The second reason why I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill is that it will impose a framework on the industries least suitable to cope with the genuine problems that exist.
      There is no disagreement in this House that there are genuine problems facing both industries. They are problems of rationalisation of the structure, of work load, of redundancy and of how Britain is to be competitive in two internationally oriented industries. They are all genuine problems. I think that we should serve the country and this House a great deal better if we spent time discussing how do deal with those problems rather than whether the industries would be better served by moving into the hands of the State. Whenever an industry has moved into the hands of the State, any solution to the kind of problems that I have listed has been prejudiced.
      There is a curious and sad relationship here to the fact that only a fortnight ago the Secretary of State for Industry told the House, once again, that he was delaying the investment programme for the steel industry. That was not for the first time, because only a few months ago the right hon. Gentleman announced a similar delay. The Labour Party, again in opposition, announced a total review because it was electorally convenient, and that had an obvious effect on the investment programme.
      The consequence is that the British Steel Corporation is now sadly behind. It is nothing like competitive by international standards. When the economy turns up—if it ever does under this Government—we shall find that we are short of the steel that we require at the prices at which it can be bought internationally. That will be the fault of the Labour Party which created the uncertainty. It now intends to do it to two more industries. In the process of doing it, it is building up an expectation among the workers in those industries

      991
      that simply by moving from the private to the public sector there will be a sort of cosy option. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes.
      Let us now come to the hon. Member for Newton, who this afternoon was saying, not for the first time, that once we have public ownership we will be able to share the orders. He implied that there would be a greater spread of opportunity as though some divine oracle from Whitehall will allocate the international customers' orders regardless of whether they want to come. It will be a question of where the votes lie and where unemployment is heaviest. It will have nothing to do with where the yards are most efficient, where costs are lowest and productivity is greatest. The hon. Member for Newton and his Friends below the Gangway will say "It is my turn next. I do not care about the viability of those industries as long as I get work at any price, with taxpayers' support, in my constituency."
      Mr. John Evans: The hon. Member badly quoted me. If the day ever dawns when we build a ship in the Newton constituency it will be the most peculiar ship anyone has ever seen because Newton happens to be 25 miles from the sea. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be a hybrid ship."] It certainly will be a hybrid ship.
      The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Government's proposals were, in effect, holding back the forward plans of the industry. Can he give one firm example of where any plans, proposals or suggestions in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry have been held back since the Government introduced their original proposals? Will he also take on board that the major problem in the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry since the war has been an almost complete lack of investment in it?
      Mr. Heseltine: I hope I am not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he was involved in the shipbuilding industry. I listened to him yesterday explaining that he worked for seven companies in two years, and I assumed that he also lived among the people with whom he worked. I did not realise that he left the areas of shipbuilding behind him in the course of those years.
      I have no wish to run away from the hon. Gentleman's question, but how does
      992
      he honestly expect 43 companies, which are now trying to face up to getting from the Government a reasonable price for the assets which are being expropriated, to lay on the line the decision which they are or are not taking? If he cannot read from the precedent of Marathon—which would not have invested a penny piece if it had not been exempted from nationalisation—the effect that it might have had on the rest of the industries, he has not begun to understand.
      Why was it that the former Prime Minister constantly said that there must be a clear divide between the public and private sectors? Was it not because he wanted to ensure that the private sector could invest with confidence? That was what it was all about. I realise that Labour Members do not believe in the argument about encouraging success. I realise that that is the fundamental dilemma which divides the Labour Party. Do not Labour Members understand that this will lead to a totally Marxist-dominated State in which every decision is taken by the State and every resource is allocated by the State, so that we get investment where the politicians want it? The only alternative that the Government can pursue is profits and a return on investment. That is the only alternative within which a private sector economy can work.
      The Secretary of State for Industry told us that what he is actually after is to get a single rationalised organisation within the aerospace industry as though this is something new. I have told him, and it is publicly known, that in 1973 agreement in principle had already been reached by the two major airframe manufacturers in this country to bring about precisely the rationalisation which today the right hon. Gentleman says he is still after. It was a voluntary agreement at no cost at all to the taxpayer, because they were prepared to discuss how the companies could be restructured within the private sector. What has happened, therefore, is that because it did not suit the dogma of the Labour Party the rationalisation has been delayed for three years. Secondly, it is being achieved at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayers money to do what could have been done two or three years ago on a voluntary basis.
      Mr. John Evans: I am Chairman of the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Assembly. We have just had a document placed before us, produced by the EEC Commission, on a proposal for the aeronautical sector of the Community. Will the hon. Gentleman read that document, which makes clear that the aeronautical industry in Europe has been an almost complete disaster since the end of the war? The Commission's proposal is that the whole industry within the nine member countries be taken over by the Commission. That is hardly a success story.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to hear that on the Labour Benches there is a flicker of interest in the European movement. Curiously enough, in 1973 I not only succeeded in obtaining agreement in principle to the idea of rationalisation but started the first intergovernmental discussions on how we could achieve a European policy for the European aircraft industry. When the Labour Party came to power, it slammed the door on those discussions because they did not suit its referendum posture. There has been delay not only in rationalisation but in European terms while the Government have reluctantly come to the conclusion that an Organising Committee chosen from people outside the industry should take over the responsibility from people who have spent their life in the industry.
      When we hear from Labour Members about the Europeanisation of the industry, I remind them that the Minister of State is now pleading with the French to allow Hawker Siddeley back into the Airbus project that the Labour Government cancelled in the late 1960s because the Airbus did not meet the European problems of the Labour movement at the time. There is now another total turnabout by the Government on the policy they created in the late 1960s. I welcome the new faith that the hon. Member for Newton shows in the European movement. It is a tragedy that it took Labour Members years to get round to it.
      The third reason why we shall oppose the Bill is that it has been sold in both industries as a means of creating or preserving jobs. One understands the argument. The impression is given by Labour Members at constituency level
      994
      that once the taxpayer owns the industry there will be a fund of taxpayers' resources to maintain people in it, regardless of the industry's work flow. That is the impression given in the steel review. It is the impression that Labour Members give in every speech they make about the problem.
      That creates a wholly illusory atmosphere about the real industrial dilemma which we face. We must find a way to sell products that people will buy at a price they will pay. The longer we go on suggesting that public ownership is a way to achieve that, the longer we shall be simply building up expectations which have never been fulfilled and which the Government now do not even have the money to fulfil.
      Mrs. Helene Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that aircraft workers in my constituency are not that stupid and are fully aware that they must make planes that people will buy if they are to keep their jobs? They are equally aware that under private enterprise they do not have a chance of continuing in employment as civil airframe workers, and that it is only with Government funding—if and when they get it—that they will have that chance.
      Mr. Heseltine: As I negotiated with Hawker Siddeley the HS146, the first civil project to be negotiated in this country for 10 years, despite the fact that for most of that period a Labour Government were in power, I am not prepared to take that from the hon. Lady. Government procurement is involved in all the high-technology industries across the world. That will always be the case. The question we must ask ourselves is why, alone among the free world countries, we believe that industrial strength can be developed by public ownership, even where there is Government procurement behind it, which no other advanced country of our sort has chosen as a means of conducting its industrial economy.
      That leads to the conclusion which constantly recurs in the debate—and the only reason why one comes to that conclusion is that there is a group of people in the Labour Party who are interested only in political solutions. They are not interested in industrial solutions. Every

      995
      time they examine an industrial situation, they come up with the identical solution—that the problems can be solved only by nationalisation. But in practice, as the people of this country understand more and more clearly, nationalisation has not only failed to solve those problems but has usually aggravated them.
      My final reason for opposing the Bill is that we are spending £300 million to compensate shareholders to persuade them to leave an industry which the vast majority of them have no wish to leave. We are putting up public money to satisfy the appetite of the Labour Party for nationalisation. As a result, we are keeping interest rates in Britain higher than they are in competing economies and, therefore, we are destroying investment throughout the private sector and consequently destroying the very jobs that the Government claim to have so much at heart.
      As long as public expenditure policies remain as they are, we shall have levels of unemployment that are too high. It is a hollow mockery for the Government to talk of a clear divide between the public and private sectors. By that they mean that one can have a resting point policy while we digest a little more of the private sector. The moment that we have digested those bits that are the subject of current legislation, we shall move on with hungry progress to take over other industries such as banks, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, the construction industries and the various industries associated with agricultural machinery and equipment which have been listed by the Government for acquisition. There is no such thing as a clear divide. The only issue is how fast one moves down the appalling road which the Government have decided to take.
      We shall vote against the Bill tonight and we shall continue to resist nationalisation with all our constitutional might. If the Bill reaches the statute book, hon. Members should have no doubt that when we come to power we shall return these industries to the private sector as fast as possible.
      9.33 p.m.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: This measure was contained in the Labour Party manifestos of 1974 and it can therefore be said that the Government
      996
      are carrying through a policy that was a commitment to the electorate. In view of that, hon. Members on the Government side can only welcome the opportunities that are provided by the measure.
      I attended about 50 sittings of the Committee on the Bill. As is their wont, Opposition Members represented their class interest as effectively as they could, Their role as representatives of big business has been to keep these industries in private hands for private profit. At no time have they been interested in the social aspects of public ownership. They have made references to the work force, but those references were invariably based on their usual approach to labour as a commodity that is bought, used and set on one side when no longer required at the will of the owners, or managers acting on behalf of the owners.
      Because of that approach, Opposition Members found it impossible to accept the concept of industrial democracy. The Opposition do not wish to accept the concept that the right of management to manage should be challenged. The proposals for industrial democracy rightly challenge that concept. If the workers in an industry that is being taken into public ownership are to respond to a variety of challenges, their loyalty will be harnessed only if they become involved in the decision making in publicly-owned industry. Anything short of that means that we shall attempt to do what private enterprise has woefully failed to do over the years, namely, to call for loyalty and then to proceed to exploit those workers.
      The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) referred yesterday to the talks he had had with shop stewards at Warton. When the Committee stage of this Bill began, I set up a series of meetings, with shop stewards at the BAC works at Warton, during which consultations took place over the amendments that were felt to be necessary to clarify industrial democracy and a host of other problems. On some occasions the shop stewards came to the House and meetings took place here; on other occasions we met the representatives on their home ground. At no time was any opposition to the Government's plans put forward by those shop stewards.
      In those meetings the subject of job security was rightly raised on many

      997
      occasions. The question of involvement in decision making was also canvassed. Despite the efforts of the Opposition to delay the Bill's passage, the Government in the last few days have taken steps to ensure the industrial progress in this sphere that is required by workers.
      I was appalled to hear the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) say that the compensation paid to the owners of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries was inadequate, in view of the sacrifices made by those owners.
      Mr. Heseltine rose—
      Mr. Thorne: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was allowed to make his speech and I hope that I shall be allowed to make mine. It is on this question of compensation that I am being interrupted. In the Standing Committee and again on the Floor of the House today, the Minister of State gave us some extremely interesting figures about public money ploughed into the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in recent years.
      Some of us believe that when public money has been given to companies in the sort of situation that has obtained in recent years, when the question of paying compensation arises the contribution already made from public funds should be taken into account. Unfortunately, the Government have not proceeded along that path, but I would not wish to suggest in any way that we should not vote for the Third Reading because of that.
      Clearly, it is my intention—and it is the desire of the aircraft workers in my constituency—to support the Third Reading, and I do it wholeheartedly.
      The problem of compensation has been raised in a perfectly bare-faced way by the Opposition, as if in some way the shareholders were being sold short, when in my view it is the public generally who have contributed to these industries and have been sold short.
      I am glad that we have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope that in a very short time we shall be welcoming vesting day, in order that we may build two industries in the interests of the British people.
      9.42 p.m.
      Mr. Kenneth Warren: This is a sad night for a proud industry, the British aircraft industry. The Minister of State must know in his heart that it is, and so should the Minister who opened the debate.
      Those hon. Members who speak about the benefits that will accrue to this industry are simply not in touch with what the industry is like on the shop floor, in design offices or in the laboratories. They do not know the contribution that the industry has made to the wealth of this country, or the contribution it has made to the defence of this country. We hear only about the handouts given to the industry, when without that industry we should not be properly defended or employed today. The wealth of this country would be less by £500 million each year in exports.
      Tonight we have listened to the Minister saying that he is frightened of the designers and the laboratory technicians who have formed themselves into staff associations to protect their own jobs. This shows the way in which the Labour Government have become frightened of the people of this country. The Government ought to be ashamed of what they are trying to force through the House tonight by the guillotine. Fewer than one in five of the people in this country want more nationalisation. We shall have a steamroller going through the Lobbies in the cause of Socialism. I wish the Minister of State were present while I read out what he said at the second of the 58 sessions we had in Committee. He said he wanted it to go forth from the Standing Committee
      "that we are nationalising these two industries in order to further Socialism in this country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16th December 1975; c. 98.]
      He said nothing about jobs or wealth, or the wellbeing of the people of this country; he spoke only about Socialism.
      In 1904, on what George Bernard Shaw described as a wet Saturday afternoon in the football season, Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution was devised—the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Seventy-two years later we are still bogged down with the stupidity of

      999
      Socialism. It cannot move without nationalising. It does not care about people, let alone the workers in an industry that it is about to nationalise.
      We have been told over and over again that nationalisation will save jobs. Labour Members know that nationalisation never saves jobs. The whole history of the nationalisation of coal, steel, the Post Office and the railways has been one of lost jobs.
      The aircraft industry workers, if they do not know it already, ought to be told tonight that they will lose jobs. Whole factories will be closed. For two years the Government have done nothing to protect the interests of the aircraft industry. They have also failed to carry out their duty under the Civil Aviation Act 1949, under which it was the Minister's task to encourage measures for the development of civil aviation, and for the design, development and production of civil aircraft. That duty is abolished under this Bill. There is a limitation on the amount of money that the workers may expect to receive as help from a Government whom they are supposed to support. The Minister must know that the workers do not support the Government. I wish that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) were still in the Chamber. He knows the result of the shop floor ballot at Warton. The workers said that they did not want nationalisation.
      Let us consider the question of industrial democracy. It is a load of twaddle, although that may be an unparliamentary word. "Industrial democracy" is a meaningless phrase. It takes away people's right to be heard. As a result of the setting up of a panoply of bureaucracy inside the proposed corporations, the workers will not be heard. They are never heard in any nationalised industry. Nor are the customers allowed to be heard. We do not believe that this nationalisation will be different, although the Minister of State told us when he introduced the Bill that this nationalisation would be different.
      Under the Bill the sum of £250 million will be allowed for new projects. That sum is enough for one new project these days. The Minister did not have to wait two years to bring the Bill forward; he could have done the work that was required before.
      1000
      The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) knows how much the workers on the shop floor at Hatfield need help. The Minister could have provided that help under the 1949 Act. What will happen? This Bill limits the amount of assistance that a Socialist Government will be able to give to the workers. What will be the result? Jobs will be lost. That will be the effect of this measure on the people who create enormous wealth. They do not wish to make vacuum cleaners, they want to work in the aircraft industry, where they know that their skills are wanted. The Government should lead this aircraft industry with vigour. We should be standing up against the French and the Germans. The Minister of State should not be obliged to go to France to talk about European or French projects.
      This leads us to the question: which factories will close? Within two or three years the words "Brough", "Chadderton", "Woodford", "Hurn", "Weybridge" and "Fitton" will be heard in the House, when we discuss the question of those workers going to the wall. The guilty men of the Government will have driven them there, as a result of the failure of the Government in the past two years. The Minister of State may look round but he will not find many Government supporters present. It is amazing how many Government supporters failed to speak in Committee on behalf of the workers, or have failed to support the Minister tonight. One Government supporter never spoke in Committee. That is not the way in which to look after the interests of workers.
      I ask the Minister and his cohort on the Front Bench why they do not have the guts to tell the truth. They have got this industry into trouble. They have told the workers that nationalisation will get them out of it. They know that that is not so. Why have the Government not got the guts to tell these chaps that they will be in the dole queues faster than they ever believed?
      The hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield knows that there are 19 Tridents left on the Hatfield order book. The Hawker Siddeley 146 cannot be made at Hatfield, nor may the BAC X11 be made at Weybridge. When nationalisation takes place, the workers' jobs in factories will be weighed in the balance.

      1001
      That is the way in which the Government will treat those who voted for them. We hear that the workers voted for the Government. It is scandalous that the workers should be used as the tools of Socialism.
      I come to the question that seems to rile Socialist Members; it is the magic word "money". The compensation is poor. After 30 per cent. capital gains tax, £70 will be left from every £100 paid in compensation. There will be a further 30 per cent. reduction. The investors will receive £49 for every £100 paid in compensation. In today's money, that will be worth only £25 compared with the 1973–74 valuation. Those who invested in those industries will receive £1 for every £4 they saved and invested. That may sound satisfactory to Socialist Members who do not care about people's savings. I am worried about where the money will come from with which to nationalise the industry.
      We have never heard from the Minister—because he dare not tell us—how much this will cost. I doubt whether he is going to get the money. This is the worst and crudest cut of all. It has been estimated that £400 million will be needed to buy these industries, and the Minister knows that we shall need about the same amount of working capital to keep them going. About £800 million must be found.
      Last week, Socialist Members trooped through the Lobbies to support cuts of £1.000 million in borrowed money in order that they should be able to afford the nationalisation of the British aerospace and shipbuilding industries. They made the choice; they decided that they wanted nationalisation in preference to schools, roads, hospitals and better pensions. That sword hangs over them, and the next election will find it dropping hard upon the heads of many hon. Members on the Government Benches who believe that Socialism will save their seats. It will not.
      The whole story has been one of robbery with violence. We have had the robbery of people's savings and, I regret to say, as one who served his apprenticeship on the shop floor, the robbery of the livelihoods and futures of many good men and women with whom I was proud to work.
      9.52 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Palmer: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) will forgive me if I do not follow his observations except to put him right on one point: we have not yet trooped through the Lobby—for or against—on the Government's economies. That comes on Monday.
      I wish instead to concentrate on the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was his usual emotional and exaggerated self. His inability to control himself in the House is now well established. The hon. Gentleman tends, as did Hitler and as does the editor of The Times, to use the expression "Marxism" as a term of abuse. If he thinks that this is a Marxist Bill or Bolshevism run mad, he cannot be living in the real world. I am a democratic Socialist and I regard this measure as a necessary extra instalment of public ownership within the context of a mixed economy.
      The Conservative Party has been converted to support of a mixed economy. In that case it means that when a Labour Government are in power the mixture will be thickened with a little more public ownership, which will be restrained when the Conservatives are in power. If the Conservatives truly believe in a mixed economy, its present objection to a Labour Government extending public ownership is going beyond the bounds of political reality. What do they expect?
      I wish to refer to the aircraft industry. The nationalisation of this industry is almost inevitable. Vast sums of public money are needed to support advanced technologies. It is increasingly difficult to get the money from private sources. Other reasons for nationalisation include the dependence of the industry on State orders and the need for further structural rationalisation—which is not denied by the Opposition. The engine side of the industry has already collapsed into nationalisation. Another reason, which I hope will not shock Opposition Members, is the superior strength and wishes of the trade union movement, as against the management side, in the industry. For a very long time the relative strength was the other way round.
      Conservative Members must understand that the historical balance of power has shifted. They must take that into

      1003
      account. At heart they know this. They understand that, in the end, this kind of legislation is inevitable. If a Conservative Government come to power in the near or distant future, I doubt whether they will denationalise the industry, despite what the hon. Member for Henley said. If they attempt it, they will not then have the support of the management in the industry. They had years in which they could have denationalised the other industries which had come into public ownership. They have had to accept that, once made, a change of this depth continues.
      The hon. Member said that Labour Members had sold this legislation to the workers by promising jobs where there was no economic basis for them. That is not true. Together with my colleagues from Bristol, I often visit BAC and we discuss in a realistic way at all times the employment situation. Of course, the change of ownership in itself will not create jobs. The creation of jobs depends on market opportunities, on skilled management and on the support of the workers in improving efficiency.
      Once this measure goes on to the statute book and the Organising Committee takes over, it will be necessary to climb down from the heights to the plain. As a superannuated revolutionary once said, "I discovered after the revolution that I still had to do the washing up". This is the case in the aircraft industry. It is not that we do not have a very good aircraft industry—it is excellent—but there are world-wide difficulties in finding markets which the workers well understand.
      I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the importance of the MRCA. I hope that there will be no question, whatever may be said in some sections of my party, of cancelling that necessary project for the defence of the country. But, apart from the fairly busy military side, on the civil side there are not many good prospects at present of any new wholly British aeroplane, leaving the Concorde out of account. I believe that to be a fact. We may get a greater share in the Airbus, the joint European project. I hope that we shall, and that we shall press that very hard with the French and the Germans.
      The employment situation in the aircraft industry is undoubtedly worrying to
      1004
      all those who are concerned with its future. I say that without any criticism of the present management. At BAC, I know most of them very well. But the threat of nationalisation cannot be blamed for the present problems of the aircraft industry. Those difficulties have arisen under the present ownership. The hope is that the new people coming in—what might be described as a new management wave—will give a leadership that will be different and be better able to cope with difficulties.
      Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Palmer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am pressed for time, and I am coming to the end of my remarks in any event.
      We have to change things for the better, not simply as a management and sales effort, important though that is, but as a joint effort by all those who work in the enterprise, on the basis of employee participation and full trade union opportunities. The hon. Member for Henley referred in a disparaging way in this connection to the TUC. Does he not understand that in this country TUC affiliation is the hallmark of genuine trade unionism? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It certainly is, and within the TUC, as my hon. Friends know, there are plenty of unions affiliated to the TUC which are available in the aircraft industry to organise management employees to the very highest level. There is no reason at all for managers at any level to go outside TUC-affiliated unions, and these are by definition all genuine unions.
      This industry has had a very great past it has a good present and I believe that we can hope for an excellent future for it. I hope that the Organising Committee in dealing with rationalisation will make haste slowly, because a tremendous amount of damage can be done in the first few years through rationalisation being too swift. But I wish this industry well, as I know my constituents do. The House should give the Bill its Third Reading.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: This Bill is very largely a measure of industrial archaeology for the

      1005
      preservation of manufacturing monuments. If it eventually becomes law, after an initial and very painful period of slimming down—an ordeal the Government have yet to face, if they are still the Government when the Bill is enacted —these two great industries, to the country's great loss, will join Stonehenge, York Minster, Fountain Abbey and Barnsley Town Hall as sacred objects which must be shored up and patched up for ever, regardless of their inutility. This disaster is compounded by the extraordinary difficulty that the Government have found in obtaining curators for these potential monuments. After a tremendously long seach some very anomalous characters have been produced.
      The origin of this unfortunate essay in expensive conservation, like so many national disasters, lies in the period of the last Conservative Administration, when the two industries made themselves enormously vulnerable. Not all the units, but many, in both industries, made themselves vulnerable to the perfectly understandable charge that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money should not be sunk in industries of this kind without a large measure of public control. If only the Conservative "gravy train" had not been so lengthy and well stocked, and had not trundled around all the aviation and shipbuilding areas in a desperate search for votes, those industries would not have been so vulnerable to the attack of the nationalisers.
      The result will be that for years to come, unless some extraordinary freak result arises under present electoral system, or there is a change in it, capital will be locked up in these industries far in excess of what they should be using—and, far more serious human lives, human skill, diligence and industry, will be locked up likewise. This is the great disaster of nationalisation—that it concentrates national resources in the wrong places, ill-adapted to Britain's modern industrial rôle.
      The Bill should not leave this place without some other minor comments. In the first place, it should have been in the form of at least two quite separate Bills. The troubles in Standing Committee and the extraordinarily tedious length of the proceedings were due almost entirely to the intolerable confusion caused by the
      1006
      fact that we were leaping from an industry that is rather ancient in its modes and is situated in certain areas of the country to an industry that is highly technological and modern, concentrated in quite different areas of the country.
      We in the Liberal Party believe that Bills to nationalise manufacturing industries should all be treated as hybrid Bills from the start, so that petitioners can be heard and the legislation can be considered properly.
      The worst charge that we can level against the Bill is that it applies to manufacturing industries of great sophistication, which are largely dependent on export orders, the same old dreary type of nationalised structure used for public service industries that exploit the consumer with their monopoly powers. One cannot treat foreign customers with the same overriding contempt as that with which the Post Office and the Gas Board treat their customers when they want to make a profit in order to please their political masters.
      There are many follies that currently contribute to our enormously swollen foreign borrowing requirements. This Bill is one of the greatest follies of all.
      10.3 p.m.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Many of us in the Scottish National Party have very severe doubts about whether the Bill will protect jobs. The OECD forecast is that the capacity for shipbuilding in Western industrial countries should be reduced by about 30 per cent., and the Government are entering tripartite talks in order to get a policy in which the shipbuilding industry will be slimmed down. Therefore, it is clear why we have doubts about this matter.
      The Bill seeks to deal with the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be very strange indeed if this House were to allow any of these vital industries to be taken over by other countries and taken outside the control of those who live in the United Kingdom, yet that is what the Government are proposing in relation to these industries in Scotland. In the Bill there is no form of Scottish control at all. At best we have the sop of decentralisation and the recognition that there

      1007
      should be some Scottish interest in the organisation. It will be very difficult indeed for the Government to marry these decentralisation proposals of giving power to the yards with a Scottish structure in British Shipbuilders.
      The overall effect of the Bill will be to establish British Shipbuilders with its headquarters organisation in Merseyside. The right hon. Member for Sunderland North (Mr. Willey) believes that the headquarters will be on Merseyside. I do not know whether that is true, but certainly they will not be in Scotland.
      Once again we will have the removal of vital Scottish industries outside Scottish control. It makes a mockery of the Government's proposals for devolution. How can they have devolution in terms of a Scottish Assembly when they take political control outside the country? The Government have missed the opportunity to bring in any effective form of Scottish control.
      What about the Government's policies for shipbuilding? I made it clear on Second Reading that the United Kingdom has had no real effective policy for shipbuilding for the last 15 years. Only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would reduce the regional employment premium, and that will affect male jobs in the shipbuilding areas. He also intends to increase national insurance contributions. That, too, will have an effect on the shipbuilding areas, because most of the jobs in the companies are for men and this will be an extra burden which will have to be carried whether the Bill succeeds tonight or not.
      Judging from what has been said by Sir Anthony Griffin and Mr. Graham Day, it seems that the individual units in the industry will be judged on their
      1008
      merits. The development areas have benefited from the regional employment premium, and they in particular will lose. An additional load will have been placed on employment in these areas which did not exist before. The Bill is supposed to retain shipbuilding jobs, but the Government are placing additional difficulties on the cash flow of these industries.
      I cannot see why the Secretary of State has allowed this to happen. He must go back to the Chancellor and explain that if this additional burden is to be placed on male jobs there will be a loss of employment for men. In the areas that I represent, as in Strathclyde, and in the North-East and the North-West of England, one of the prime needs is for more male jobs. The Government must make up their minds what they want to do.
      We have the promise of rationalisation, but to Scottish hearts and Scottish minds rationalisation means redundancy. Already trade union shop stewards have been in touch with us in the SNP seeking our support to protect Scottish jobs, even under the nationalisation structure which the Government have in mind. They are also trying to get Labour Party support, but that is difficult to obtain when it comes to supporting jobs in the face of Government policy.
      The Government have failed to take up their opportunity to provide for effective Scottish control. Once again they are proceeding with a nationalisation measure which will take opportunity and decision-making power away from Scotland. They will be placing the shipbuilding industry under the overall control of British Shipbuilders, which will be based on Merseyside, Teesside, Wear-side or some such place. That is unacceptable to the people of Scotland.
      10.13 p.m.
      Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is mistaken if he thinks I believe that the headquarters of British Shipbuilders will be on Merseyside. I believe they will be on the North-East Coast.
      We spent a long time in Standing Committee, but for once I think that it was time profitably spent. The Bill contains three entirely new features. It provides for industrial democracy, and that it not unimportant. Secondly, it provides for decentralisation. In the February 1974 General Election I told the men in the yards at Sunderland that we would have centralised bureaucratic nationalisation over my dead body, and I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for affording me the opportunity to remain alive. The Bill contains decentralisation based upon something which I also argued in Standing Committee—profit centres. That is another important change in our approach to nationalisation.
      Thirdly, we have moved some way from the Morrisonian concept of nationalisation. We have brought in the concepts that we were discussing last night. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to unemployment and regional policy, and these are dealt with by the Bill. My right hon. Friend mentioned the certificate of independence. This is important to those who have made representations to me. Legislation on industrial democracy is expected. If agreement is reached before the Bill passes through all its stages in another place, I hope that provision will be made in it for these two industries.
      Reference has been made to management under nationalisation. Sunderland Shipbuilders are nationalised. The yard was profitable, but Court Line got into difficulty and it was nationalised. There is the same management now as there was before. It is showing enterprise and fighting for orders.
      The largest capital investment has been in Austin and Pickersgill—£35 million. That investment was after the election of the Labour Government. The firm applied for help to the previous Conservative Government but it received aid from the Labour Government. All
      1010
      this has been done under the shadow of nationalisation. It has made no difference. That was mixed investment. The money could be raised only if the Government put in £9½ million. During the negotiations, Austin and Pickers-gill offered the Government 25 per cent. of its equity with no condition about nationalisation, but the Government provided the loan without taking 25 per cent. of the equity.
      The returns have just come in and they show that, in terms of compensated tons, new orders taken in United Kingdom yards during the first six months of 1976 were three times as much as for the whole of 1975—more than four times as much in terms of gross registered tons. That shows that the threat of nationalisation has not prejudiced the yards. It is untrue to say that the threat of nationalisation prevented orders being placed.
      How does the shipbuilding industry fare? During the time we have been debating in Committee, the nationalised and private enterprise parts of the industry have been working hard and have had some return. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remembered the days when British shipbuilding yards produced one-quarter of world output. I have spoken in the House at a time when British shipbuilding accounted for more than half of world output.
      Japan is cutting back its projected capacity by 20 per cent. Everyone in the industry knows that the present degree of nationalisation means that the whole industry must be nationalised.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why?
      Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Booz-Allen Report. I have read it and I have repeatedly referred to it. It was pointed out in that report—this projection was made several years ago—that next year one of our eight yards would be closed. That was realised by Austin and Pickersgill. If an industry is largely publicly controlled, that will very much affect the way in which it is treated. The private yard knows that in that situation it cannot survive, however profitable it may appear to be.
      The shipbuilders I have spoken to are disturbed by the protracted discussions in the House. They are anxious to

      1011
      have the matter settled in the interests of the industry. We should not be too doctrinaire. We must face realistically the difficulties that confront the industry—for example, Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd., Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., Harland and Wolff and Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd. We must realise that the industry is facing the most intense competition that has existed since the war. It is necessary to have a national structure within which to deal with it, and that is what we are providing today.
      I hope that the Bill will afford the industry the opportunity that it needs so that we need not talk about its being a national monument. The speech which included that phrase should be circulated to the Sunderland Liberal Party. It is interesting that there are Members in the House who talk about one of our basic industries being a national monument. It is a disgrace to say such things. There is a great ability in the industry. There are those within it who have fought very hard for it. There are workers within it who have worked hard and who are second to none in many skills. It is their livelihoods for which we are fighting. By agreeing to a Third Reading, we shall at any rate be giving them a chance.
      10.23 p.m.
      Mr. George Younger: There is little left to say at the end of the Bill's prolonged passage. I suppose the best thing that can be said is that at least and at last we know the worst—namely, that these great industries are being taken into nationalisation. They are to be brought under one impersonal and remote form of management. They are to be brought within a system which has not worked for any other industry and which shows no signs of working for these industries.
      To do the Secretary of State credit, I did not think that he had his heart in the words that he read when making his speech this evening. It was a load of nonsense that bore no relationship to the real facts.
      What will face these industries? The shipbuilding and aircraft industries have in them successful and unsuccessful companies. The successful ones make millions of pounds for our exports and
      1012
      balance of payments while the unsuccessful ones offer many people employment. They will not all be brought under the same heading. There is no prospect of seeing any improvement in management. It is a tragedy that the only thing that can possibly result for those who now work in these industries is a struggle to outwit the worst effects of nationalisation.
      I shall mention one of the smallest companies that is to be nationalised, because it is in my constituency—namely, Scottish Aviation Ltd. at Prestwick. It is a firm which, for the aviation industry, has a long history. For over 50 years it has been one of the pioneer companies in British aviation. It has had its good times and its bad times. It is worth remembering that the 10 years which ended in 1974 were the most successful years in the company's history. It is a small company that will form a very small part of a monster of a nationalised industry. It will take all the skill, devotion and courage of those who work: in it, manage it and represent it to ensure that it is not swallowed up and completely obliterated. I warn the Minister that I shall continue to fight hard for the company under nationalisation, regrettable though nationalisation may be. The company must continue and it must be protected.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has a nerve to come here and say what he did tonight, because some weeks ago the Scottish National Party had the opportunity to demonstrate positively that it was on the side of those who were against nationalising these industries. The SNP ran away from that opportunity in the most ignominious way. It was not by accident. It was because the Government realised that they would be in difficulty in that vote. What did they do? They brought in the frighteners, the heavy mob. Trade union representatives in Scotland went to see the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—they demanded to see them—and they put the screws on. But they did not need to do very much. They simply needed an interview, and the hon. Gentleman went back to his parliamentary colleagues to railroad them into deserting the Opposition on that vital night.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
      Mr. Younger: On that vital night SNP Members gave the Government time to win the two by-elections that were pending. It is no use having the support of the SNP now. It will be welcome if it comes, but it is no longer of any use. The hon. Member for Dundee, East must know that he let down thousands of people who were looking to the nationalists to help us to defeat the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has let down those people, and they will not forget it.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I have been rather amused, because the hon. Gentleman said that if the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru had voted with the Opposition that evening the Opposition would have won and the Government would have been defeated. In fact, as he knows, for the second time running a Conservative Member was absent from the vote. I am suspicious that, whenever it comes to a major vote in which the Government might be defeated, there is always a Conservative Member absent. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the meeting we were asked to give our support for the protection of the jobs of the workers if nationalisation went ahead?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his go, and I am hoping to call one more Member before the winding-up speeches.
      Mr. Younger: It is no use the hon. Gentleman hiding behind a technicality. The fact is that he let down the people who were looking to the SNP to help to defeat the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it that way.
      The Bill will do nothing but harm to many people who work in highly successful industries. I wish that the Government would have the sense to recognise that fact and, even now, realise that the Bill can do nothing to help them.
      10.28 p.m.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not join in the argument between the official Tories and the tartan Tories. We had an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but it was a speech that we had heard at least 10 times before.
      1014
      I suggest that it was as daft on its tenth rendering as on its first.
      The Conservative Party, now joined by the Liberal Party, has adopted scare tactics to pretend that public ownership of the shipbuilding industry will lead to unemployment. However, the whole House knows that the opposite is the truth. If the Bill had not been introduced, there would have been widespread bankruptcies among shipbuilding companies with consequent widespread unemployment among workers in the industry.
      When I first read the Bill, there were a number of matters about which I was not happy. However, it has been greatly improved both in Committee and on Report. All the credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and his junior Ministers.
      I particularly welcome the amendments dealing with industrial democracy and decentralisation. I am also pleased with the assurances that have been given by Government Front Bench spokesmen and the Organising Committee, which is doing a very good job, that the units inside British Shipbuilders will have a great deal of local autonomy and that not all the decisions will be referred to headquarters.
      I should like to make one critical comment. I hope that the Organising Committee will be allowed to choose the site for its headquarters wherever it thinks best for commercial reasons and that the Government will not be bound by any rash statement made by former Ministers.
      I welcome the fact that the warship-building section of the shipbuilding industry is to remain in the Bill. There was an attempt earlier to take it out. What an absurd situation we should have had if the warship section had been taken out of the Bill and had remained outside public ownership.
      I am one of those who believe very much that the three specialist warship yards of Yarrow, Vickers and Vosper Thornycroft are getting orders from the Ministry of Defence because they are the most efficient warship construction yards. What would have been the position had they been left out of the Bill? I think

      1015
      there would have been every temptation for the Ministry of Defence in future years to place its naval shipbuilding orders with the yards that are in public ownership rather than those outside it.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that when he and I accompany the Minister of State on a visit to Vosper Thornycroft tomorrow one of the main issues the Company will wish to discuss with the Minister is the urgent need to get a contract for a Type 42 frigate. Would my hon. Friend venture an opinion as to whether the firm's chances of obtaining such a contract, either now or in the future, would be improved or worsened if it remained outside the British Shipbuilders Corporation?
      Mr. Mitchell: In my opinion, its chances will be very much improved by being inside British Shipbuilders. As my hon. Friend well knows, he and I have continually pressed the Ministry of Defence to place defence orders at Vosper Thornycroft because it is one of the there most efficient shipbuilding yards in the country. If the rest of the industry was nationalised and that company remained outside, there would be a very great danger indeed that it would suffer and there would be a loss of jobs in those three specialist yards. The men in Yarrow, the men in Vickers and those in Vosper Thornycroft know that very well.
      Mr. Viggers rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. There is a shortage of time and other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman made a speech earlier.
      Because of the decline in world shipbuilding orders, the British shipbuilding industry faces a difficult time in the next few years. No one pretends that the path will be easy. I believe, however, that the Bill provides the best chance of survival for the British shipbuilding industry. Let us have no further delay.
      The tactics of the Opposition in delaying the Bill have created uncertainty and caused all sorts of trouble. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) should read a speech made by the chairman of the organisation that the hon. Gentleman represents in this House.
      1016
      The chairman said that the worst thing we could possibly have was continuing uncertainty, and he said that we should reach a decision one way of the other. The quicker the Bill gets on to the statute book, the better it will be for the British shipbuilding industry.
      10.34 p.m.
      Mr. John Cope: The Bill is a tragic one. It is also a bad Bill. We Conservatives have been criticised during the debates, yesterday and before, for speaking too much about compensation, arbitration, safeguarding and so on. But more than half the clauses in the Bill are about these matters. More than half the clauses in the Bill are about the act of nationalisation. Very little of the Bill is about the future of these two industries, and that is what matters to the country and to those who work in them.
      When we looked at the details of the Bill in Committee, we saw that the provisions for accounts and audits, in which I take a special interest because of my professional expertise, are very sketchy indeed. They are much more flimsy than those provided for private companies in the various Companies Acts over the years. Similarly, the provisions about industrial democracy are extremely vague and are only a little less vague as a result of the amendments which have been made on Report.
      It has been said that private industry has failed to introduce industrial democracy. But what about the nationalised industries? They, too, have failed to introduce industrial democracy—whatever that means—in the way that Labour Members want. If hon. Members on the Government side have brilliant ideas about introducing great new schemes into nationalised industries, let them put them into practice in the existing nationalised industries first instead of taking new industries into public ownership in order to experiment on them.
      I return to the main point, that the Bill is not about the future of the industries. In spite of the debates, we still do not know what the Government will do with them. We have been able to pick up a few scraps of information here and there. A little piece of the jigsaw puzzle began to be filled in on Monday by the Minister of State, when

      1017
      our local paper reported him at Yeovilton as once again holding out the idea that nationalisation was good for jobs and saying:
      "If we get more Concorde orders, then fine for Filton. If we don't, there is a possibility we will have to look at other projects when the industry is nationalised."
      He tries all the time to imply that jobs are safe only if—or "when", as he puts it—the industry is nationalised. It is grossly misleading to my constituents and others involved.
      The hon. Gentleman added that he hoped more work would come to Filton from the building of the MRCA. I hope that it does, as a result of orders for the Tornado which this Government and the Governments of other countries are to place. But I also hope that the Members representing Preston are satisfied that work should be transferred from there to Filton, and that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), is happy that even more of the jobs of his constituents and mine should depend on the defence budget. Many of them in Rolls-Royce in my constituency already depend on the MRCA, and they will depend on it in the future. Maybe more workers at Filton will depend on it.
      We also picked up another piece of the jigsaw puzzle on the shipbuilding side, not from the Department of Industry but from the Secretary of State for Employment, who said in his constituency of Barrow-in-Furness that three yards were to have priority. One was the Vickers yard at Barrow. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has taken that on board. He obviously hopes that his is another of the yards. We have not been told which are the other two yards. We have been told nothing else about the future of these two industries, in spite of the long debates on this ghastly Bill.
      10.38 p.m.
      Mr. Tom King: As we come to what will be, one way or the other, the final stage of the Bill in this House, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for his kind words, which I reciprocate. I commend him for his drive and energy in leading the opposition to the Bill. I also particularly
      1018
      thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for the most energetic way in which he whipped us into order on a number of occasions, and I thank all my hon. Friends who supported us in the protracted consideration of this long Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, we have fought by every constitutional means open to us.
      I wish that I could say that the Government had opposed us in the same spirit and in the same way. The Committee stage and further consideration of the Bill will go down in parliamentary history as the longest ever. I hope that it will never be surpassed in the deviousness and sordid behind-the-scenes manoeuvres that have marked the succeeding stages of the Bill. These have gone on so long that many hon. Members may have forgotten some of the events leading to the Government's saving the Bill only by a broken pair on one occasion. They have dealt behind the scenes with certain other parties, and those parties probably now bitterly regret this. They must now realise how they have been hoodwinked at every stage.
      I agreed with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) when he said that the Government were largely to blame for many of the problems. By any standards, the provisions of this measure should have been contained in two Bills. Having only one Bill led to difficulties at Second Reading and in Committee when we had to dodge from one industry to another. Many of the problems would have been avoided if the Government had recognised at the start that the Bill was hybrid. It must grieve the Secretary of State that we would have progressed faster if more thought had been given at the beginning to the way in which the measure was tackled.
      I approach Third Reading and the end of our opposition—and we have fought as hard as we could—not in a spirit of anger but with a deep sadness. I sincerely believe that it will not help British industry. If I believed that it would help British industrial performance, if I believed that employment would be more secure or that it would help exports, I would consider the measure seriously. British industry

      1019
      faces many problems and handicaps, and I believe that Clause 4 is one of the albatrosses which Britain sadly has to carry, to its cost. It is a relic of a previous industrial policy which is totally discredited, which the Government do not have the courage finally to repudiate and which still has to make its turgid and damaging progress.
      The Government's solution is the least suitable to the genuine problems that these industries face. They are supremely international companies. The aircraft and shipbuilding industries cannot hope to survive unless they can attract a substantial amount of overseas business. They are not domestic service industries. They do not have a monopoly in their markets. They will live or die by service, quality and competitiveness. In that situation, does anyone seriously believe that putting them under the bureaucracy of national State ownership will solve any of their problems?
      Yesterday I spoke of decentralisation and I challenged the Government to explain what is likely to happen to the marketing functions of these industries. I asked whether they were likely to remain separate. I asked what would happen to wage negotiations and whether they would be negotiated in the individual companies or at national level. I asked what would happen to the purchasing functions and pricing policies.
      Inevitably, centralisation will occur. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said "Centralisation over my dead body." A former leader of his party used the same expression about grammar schools, and we have seen what has happened to them. I would not sell a life insurance policy to the right hon. Gentleman because of the speed with which I expect centralisation to happen. The Scottish nationalists and others have been grievously misled over the idea that there will be a separate Scottish Shipbuilders Corporation. Centralisation will undoubtedly come to pass.
      There are many pious hopes in this regard. Indeed, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said how splendid and how much improved the Bill was. But when the amendments are examined, it can be seen that they do not amount to a row of beans. All that the corporations have to say, within
      1020
      the proper discharge of their functions, is "We are reporting to you within three months as required under the legislation, and we discover that we cannot decentralise this, that or the other function." In other words, the protection in the Bill will be destroyed at a stroke. So much for local determination. There will obviously be a move towards centralisation.
      Furthermore, political considerations will come into play. It will be said "Where is the unemployment, where are the Labour marginal seats? Therefore, we consider that the orders will have to go to this or that yard". When a foreign customer is sent to a yard which he does not like and which falls down on the job, that will be the last time we see him.
      It has been said by Labour Members "If the Bill does not go through, there will he unemployment in the yards ". Announcements have already been made in the House that 20,000 men will be affected by the present defence cuts. Indeed, it is estimated that in the next 10 years 11,000 of them, or more than half, will lose their jobs. So much for the protection of employment offered under nationalisation. Yet at the same time the Tribune Group advocates the cancellation of the MRCA Tornado. The Secretary of State for Defence has already made clear that such a step would mean the loss of 25,000 jobs in the industry and the virtual destruction of the British airframe industry.
      Finally, there is the claim that these proposals will give protection to the industry and those who are employed in it.
      While all this argument has been taking place, crucial time has been lost in terms of providing orders for shipyards. Equally, a great deal of time has been lost in negotiating with our European partners possible collaborative airspace projects. Perhaps if we had taken advantage of the two years that have been lost we would now have had a share of new projects. Now, however, those projects could be lost for ever.
      On the horizon is the prospect that the Government will try to bring in similar proposals for the banks and the insurance companies. If the worst were to happen in that respect—and my colleagues and I are determined to prevent that happening—we might well face the situation in two years' time that we

      1021
      are accused of delaying tactics that will damage the future of the banks and the insurance companies.
      Against that background, and in the knowledge that the Bill will do nothing for these industries but damage and endanger employment, we shall oppose it with all our vigour.
      11.48 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufman: Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that this House is about to make a momentous decision. Every vote cast in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill will be a vote to give hope and opportunity to the British aircraft industry and the British shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Every vote cast against the Bill—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was heard in an atmosphere of reasonable order. I hope that that situation will be allowed to continue.
      Mr. Kaufman: Every vote cast against the Bill will be a vote in favour of the destruction of the civil airframe industry. Every vote cast against the Bill will be a vote in favour of the destruction of the merchant shipbuilding industry in this country.
      The result of the lack of initiative of the aircraft industry under private ownership is that not a single new significant project has been launched by it during the whole of this decade. The only new project has been the SD330, launched by the nationalised Short Brothers in Northern Ireland, whose Unionist Members plan tonight to vote to deny the benefits of public ownership to the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The Government have more confidence in the aircraft industry than its private owners, and I have evidence of this for the House.
      Mr. Robert J. Bradford rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: Earlier this year the Civil Aircraft Division of the British Aircraft Corporation requested an extension of the Government's underwriting of the BAC111 production line which was announced to Parliament in June 1975. This request was subsequently
      1022
      supported by the Organising Committee for British Aerospace.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now agreed, subject to negotiation of satisfactory contractual arrangements, that the potential liability falling to the Government can be increased by a maximum of £3 million at July 1976 economic conditions. If these arrangements can be negotiated, this will mean that BAC will now be able to go ahead on the production of a further five BAC111 aircraft and this should be able to retain in its work force a considerable number of people at Hurn and Weybridge—both, of course, in the area of Labour marginal seats—who otherwise would have been forced to find other work.
      In accordance with the underwriting agreement, profits from further sales will be applied towards reducing the liability incurred by the Government and actual payment by the Government would be made only if an overall loss remained when BAC111 production finally ceased. Under the agreement—
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene in the Minister's speech, but, although it is the practice of the House that a certain latitude is given to Ministers as to the prohibition on the reading of speeches, is not that latitude conditioned by their giving some semblance at least of understanding the text which they are reading?
      Mr. Kaufman: I am making an announcement of vital importance[Interruption.]—to thousands of people.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has not long to go—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister has the right to be heard as well. Mr. Kaufman.
      Mr. Kaufman: Under the agreement, all the finance required for the continuation of production is being provided by the British Aircraft Corporation.
      Also, during the same period Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd. proposed a six-month programme of additional design work, research and development and structural testing relating to the HS146 aircraft project. Subsequently this was examined in detail with the company.

      1023
      I can now announce that in order to continue to meet the Government's decision of December 1974—
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is not a case of the Minister refreshing his mind from copious notes. This is a third-rate diatribe being read to us.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that was not a point of order.
      Mr. Kaufman: This announcement is of vital importance to thousands of aircraft workers.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is waiting to hear the Minister wind up the Third Reading of this important Bill. He said that he was making an announcement, which is completely unrelated to the Bill.
      Mr. Speaker: The content of the Minister's speech is his responsibility. But he should be heard.
      Mr. Kaufman: To meet the Government's decision of December 1974 to keep open the possibility of launching that aircraft, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed in principle to the company undertaking the proposed programme. The Di million required to fund this work will be the responsibility of British Aerospace on vesting day and will therefore be met from within the funds of the new corporation relevant to the Bill. The Organising Committee of British Aerospace has endorsed the Hawker Siddeley Aviation proposal. I am now writing to the company setting out the terms of the Government's approval, which will be reported to the House when the necessary contractural agreements are concluded.
      If the arrangements go ahead, Hawker Siddeley Aviation will not have to announce a substantial number of redundancies which otherwise would have been necessary in the immediate future at Hatfield. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) for her pressure on the Government for all this.
      Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard some humbug
      1024
      tonight. Will you rule whether humbug is an offence?
      Mr. Kaufman: These industries have much to contribute. During the eight months in which the House has been considering the Bill. I have had the opportunity of visiting 20 shipyards, ship repair yards and aircraft factories, from Prestwick in the north to Brough in the east, to Hum in the south and to Filton in the west. I have seen great ships and aircraft being constructed. I am dazzled and humbled by the expertise of the workers in those industries. Only public ownership can rectify the worst and make the most fruitful use of the best.
      Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a provision of the orders of the House that a speech on Third Reading must be confined to what is in the Bill?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing out of order yet.
      Mr. Kaufman: The workers in these industries have earned their chance. The Bill will give them their chance, and I urge the House to support it tonight.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 308.
      [For Division List No. 304 see col. 1061]
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (STEEL WORKERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the European Communities (Iron and Steel Employees Re-adaptation Benefits Scheme) (Amendment) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.—[Mr. Huckfield.]
Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on the European Communities motion. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Aye. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again.
Hon. Members: Aye.
Question put and agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (STEEL WORKERS)

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to require medical practitioners seeking to provide general medical services under the National Health Service Act 1946 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 to be suitably experienced, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Eric Deakins.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Mr. Speaker: I will, with the permission of the House, put the next three motions together.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.)

  TAX EXEMPTIONS
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2688/1/75 and R/2689/1/75 relating to Tax Exemptions.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  PENSIONS
  That the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

  ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES
  That the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Payment and Loan Limit) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  Question agreed to.

INVALID VEHICLES AND MOBILITY ALLOWANCE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I was in this position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take part in earlier business which I was unable to hear, so I shall remain at the Dispatch Box to raise the subject of the problems of disabled drivers in West Sussex. I make no apology for calling attention to this issue, and I do so in the light of the statement made by the Secretary of State last Friday.
Before I proceed any further, I wonder whether the Minister who is expected to reply to this Adjournment debate is in the Chamber tonight.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Leslie Huckfield): For the convenience of the hon. Member, I can tell him that my hon. Friend is just arriving.
Mr. Marshall: In that case I shall continue.
Perhaps I may deal with the background to this matter.
It has been raised with the Minister both in terms of my constituency and from time to time in the broader context of the rest of the country. I had considerable correspondence with the hon. Gentleman in 1974 and 1975, touching on matters such as the problem of safety for the road trike, arguments over design, and difficulties in obtaining spare parts and servicing.
Last Friday's announcement was the end of a campaign conducted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Let me remind the Minister of correspondence we had at the time, in respect of Mrs. Jane Image, of Littlehampton. She was a classic example of someone who found difficulty with the trike. Over

1027
many years she made her views known through the Disabled Drivers' Action Group and other bodies. A whole range of questions which I put to the Minister over a period were fed to me by Mr. Peter MacBryan, of the Disabled Drivers' Action Group.
The background to last Friday's announcement is important, therefore. The work undertaken by the all-party Disablement Group is important, because it is on that theme that I should like to put some questions to the Minister. I do so in no party sense, as I hope he will appreciate.
In view of the widespread criticism that had gone on about the trike, last Friday's announcement was received with some satisfaction, in certain parts of the House and the country. But, unfortunately, I could not be here last Friday. I was in my constituency, and on Saturday, in travelling around in my mobile advice centre, I received some of the first reactions to the announcement. They were very strong and they reflected the anguish of a number of my constituents and disabled drivers elsewhere in the country.
I sent the Minister three letters that are typical of the kind of reaction that has come up so far, and I should like to quote briefly from them. Other letters were sent to me after it was known that I had tonight's Adjournment debate, but I shall concentrate on those from my constituents, since they are typical of many that I have received since.
The first letter was sent to me, before last Friday's announcement, by Mr. John Sachs, of Bognor Regis. He raised the problem of a disabled driver who was the owner of a trike—in this case in 1969–70. This constituent gave up the trike because, as he says, he accepted the general view then put forward regarding doubts about the safety of the vehicle. Having given it up he found that when the disability allowance was subsequently made available and he applied for it in January this year, he was refused.
The question that arises from this case is: how does a constituent manage in that situation? That brings us back to the announcement last Friday, when the Secretary of State made clear that
1028
"as for the eligibility of those beyond pension age, I have already mentioned that those who already have trikes and who will be allowed to continue with them after pension age must be allowed to continue with the alternative, which is mobility allowance, after pension age. Obviously this will produce pressure for the provision to be extended from those who do not have trikes but who have a mobility allowance that ends at pensionable age."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2233.]
The Secretary of State went on to say that he would resist that pressure. My constituent has not been granted an allowance, and he gave up the trike before reaching pensionable age.
The Government appear to deny the allowance precisely at the moment when it is most needed—at a time when retirement age is reached and earnings decline. At the moment when a person is unable to take advantage of any Employment Service Agency payments and when his overall means are at the lowest pitch, the allowance would be most valuable. What hope does the Minister hold out for my constituent and others like him?
One of the best summaries of the problem is contained in a letter written by Baroness Sharp to The Times earlier this week. She recalled the long drawn-out debate that led to the announcement that the trike was to be phased out. I draw a veil over some of the arguments in that debate over many years. The background is not entirely happy, and it has not left people with overwhelming confidence in the role of the Department of Health and Social Security in this connection.
Baroness Sharp put my constituent's case in a nutshell. She welcomed the phasing out of the trike, and added that the decision to phase it out had been a relatively easy one; the much more difficult decision was what should replace it. That is the question to which I hope the Minister will address himself.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Does the hon. Gentleman accept Lady Sharp's fairly severe functional criteria? Does he agree with the view of the Disabled Drivers' Association that the result of adopting those criteria would be to disqualify 13,500 disabled drivers from the scheme?
Mr. Marshall: I do not think that there is much point in going back to the debate

1029
about phasing out the trike. That decision has been made. I should like to make my speech in my own way. I am drawing to the Minister's attention what Baroness Sharp—whom we all respect—said in The Times. She asked what should replace the trike. The Government's answer to that question is an allowance of £5 a week. Again, Baroness Sharp puts is fairly:
"The truth is that £5 a week is not a mobility grant at all … It will help those who can afford cars to run them; it may help others to meet the cost of occasional transport. But it dens nothing to solve the problems of those in greatest need; those unable to buy a car but whose need for personal transport is compelling."
That is a fair and valid point of view.
So far we have been unable to get any assurance on what would be an adequate amount. When we come to the letters from my constituents the relevance of the level of the allowance becomes all the more obvious. One constituent wrote to me as follows:
"As one of many thousands of paraplegics with similar problems I would ask you, please, to put it to the Minister that (1) the £5 a week would scarcely help me, since I could not board a bus even if I could reach one. My world will shrink to a radius of about one mile (if I can find a sturdy pusher). (2) I shall be forced to ask others to choose my purchases and library books, perform monetary transactions and arrange meetings for me, thus depriving me of every scrap of privacy, In fact, life in a goldfish bowl!"
I have had a letter from another constituent and, again, the Minister has a copy. The lady says that she left school at 16 and did not have a job until last year. She continues:
"I now work part-time and also because I earn less than £7 per week get the invalidity benefit, how does the Social Services Minister think I am going to be able to buy a vehicle to get around in with an extra £5?
She concludes:
"Disabled people want to be independent, not dependent."
That is the spirit of the constituents who have approached me. I am sure that it is one that is echoed throughout the country. I appreciate that it is a difficult problem, and I am not in any way underestimating the Minister's difficulties, but the answer to Baroness Sharp's question appears to be that the Government have pinned their faith on the cash allowance. Therefore, we want to hear from the Minister rather more
1030
than we have heard so far about what the allowance is likely to be.
At present we have the reference to £5. We know that the matter is to be reviewed again next year. We hear rumours that it might be increased to £7. However, the real thrust of the reaction that I get, which I suspect all hon. Members will get, is that the figures we are talking about are totally inadequate, because of the capital cost of covering some sort of replacement vehicle.
It is in that context that I have to strike a somewhat critical note. I believe, with all respect, that in the Secretary of State's statement last Friday there was an element of self-congratulation, which is rather hard to swallow in relation to the figures that have been announced. I must put that charge to the Secretary of State, but I exempt the Minister. He did not make the statement last week, and over the years I have not found him to adopt that line. I suggest that with the background that I have described there is no room for self-satisfaction.
I urge the Minister to give us some real assurance. I am sure that he is aware of the reaction and the worries that have been promptly expressed on all sides. In the two minutes that remain to me I ask him two specific questions. First, do the Government accept the need to make more cash available so that drivers can acquire a suitable successor to the trike? Do they accept the need to make cash available so that an alternative vehicle to the trike can be obtained, whether it be on hire purchase, by way of capital grant, or on any other basis? Secondly, what are the Government doing specifically to encourage the production of a successor?
It is obvious that £5 is not an adequate sum. We must face the fact that during the next 12 months there may be people who on safety grounds wish to give up the trike and use the present allowance. The worry about the recent announcement is that it seems actively to encourage people to hang on to the trike after their true safety, as it were, has already been undermined by the Department. It is possible to refer to a number of references made to that point last Friday—namely, to carrying on with trikes until they are worn out, which involve about five years' use, and then considering the matter again. This is worrying.

1031
There is little evidence that the Government are doing anything directly about the production of a possible successor vehicle. The whole tone of the Secretary of State's answers to questions last Friday suggested that there was no urgency. He said:
"we expect to be able to maintain the supply of trikes, for those who want to keep them, for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer."
Subsequently, he said:
"When the time approaches we shall assess the extent of the need for specialised vehicles for the remaining vehicle scheme beneficiaries and see which alternative vehicles and electrically powered wheelchairs, are available on the home and world markets."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2236–7.]
That surely suggests that it will be a long time before the Government feel that they are forced to take any action. Surely they should encourage the fastest possible breakthrough in terms of designs and replacements for the trike during this run down period. We cannot wait for five years and then expect a Government, of whatever political complexion, to consider the matter.
There should be scope for co-operation within the EEC. Some hon. Members with great experience of these matters have looked at work in other European countries, and there are examples of conversions that might be worth looking at.
These are some of the worries that have been expressed by my constituents. I accept the difficulties, but I ask the Minister to recognise that the points that I have put to him are mild compared with some of the criticism that has been thrown out. Indeed, he will be aware of the words of Mr. Reginald Ralph, of the Invalid Tricycle Action Group, and others. Compared with those arguments, I believe that I have put forward the mild but strong views of my constituents. I seek some further assurances from the hon. Gentleman tonight.
11.36 pm.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): This is a rather unusual adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) was good enough to let me know the day before yesterday that the matter he would raise was not the one that he originally noti-
1032
fied as the subject of the debate. I understand his reasons for having raised this alternative subject instead of a matter concerning payment of the attendance allowance, as he originally intended.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of matters. I understand that I have 12 to 13 minutes in which to reply. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is an extremely complex and difficult subject. Indeed, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whom the whole House respects as secretary of the all-party Disablement Group in the House, will agree with both the hon. Gentleman and me that there are few more complex subjects exercising the minds of right hon. and hon. Members at present. Naturally, I shall do my best to reply as fully as possible to the points that have been made.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this timely opportunity to explain our policy on phasing out the invalid tricycle and extending the mobility allowance scheme and to answer some of the ill-informed comments that have been made on the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July.
First, I must make it clear that there is no question of immediate withdrawal of tricycles from existing users or of not dealing with applications for the vehicle which are already in hand. As my right hon. Friend said, existing users will be able to keep their tricycles and, for as long as replacements and spare parts are available, they will also be able to have them replaced when they wear out.
I have seen it suggested in the Press that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months. We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the anxieties felt by some of his constituents. The suggestion that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months is utterly without foundation.
My right hon. Friend explained to the House that we expect to be able to maintain the supply of tricycles to those who want to keep them or have them replaced, for at least five years and possibly for a good deal longer. We shall be building up a stockpile of spare parts expressly designed to enable us to keep

1033
our residual fleet going for as long as practicable after production has ceased.
That does not mean I can guarantee that, in every single case where a tricycle wears out within the next five years, we shall automatically be able to provide a replacement vehicle. A small proportion of the tricycles on issue have been extensively adapted to suit individual disabled people's needs, and there is the possibility, even today, that we may be unable to provide suitable replacements when such tricycles wear out. Components used in an adaptation may have ceased to be available, or the tricycle may have been an early model and it may not be possible for the Model 70 to be similarly adapted, even though generally the Model 70 is more readily adaptable to a variety of needs than were its predecessors. In the vast majority of cases, however, I have no hesitation in saying that we expect to be able, for at least five years, to continue to provide and maintain tricycles for those who have had them and still want them.
There are two other points from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July which I should like to stress. The first concerns people who were not so severely disabled as to be eligible for a vehicle on medical grounds alone and who, under the old scheme, were provided with a tricycle only for so long as they needed it to get to and from work. It was one of the worst of the cruelties of the old scheme that their tricycles, or private car allowances, were liable to be withdrawn if they lost their jobs. Tricycles may not have been withdrawn immediately, but if the holder was unable to find another job in a reasonable time he had to surrender the tricycle, and he thus became deprived of all mobility help. That rule was, rightly, much criticised for causing hardship to people who had come to depend on their tricycles and for making it more difficult for them to continue to look for another job.
We are now making two changes affecting these former beneficiaries of the old scheme. First—and this change takes effect immediately—we shall now no longer withdraw their tricycles or private car allowances when they lose their jobs. I know that this will be most warmly welcomed by the many thousands of disabled people concerned.
1034
Secondly, the legislation that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to introduce will provide a right to switch to mobility allowance when a tricycle, or private car allowance, is given up, or, for those who hold on to their tricycles for as long as they can, when the trike eventually wears out. Taken together, these changes amount to a substantial extension of reserved rights for disabled drivers.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the legislation that we shall be introducing to enable awards of mobility allowance to beneficiaries of the old scheme to continue in payment without age limit. Again, the legislation will enable tricycle holders over pension age, and those receiving private car allowances under the old scheme, to switch to a mobility allowance. This, too, is an important undertaking for disabled drivers, because about half of our 21,000 tricycle drivers are at present ineligible for mobility allowance, either by reason of age or because eligibility for a trike rested on the old and bitterly criticised employment criterion.
The old vehicle scheme had no age limit, and when it was superseded by the new mobility allowance scheme on 1st January 1976 the eligible disabled drivers were accorded reserved rights to continue, without age limit, to receive the benefits of the old scheme. We feel it is right, therefore, that they should now similarly enjoy, without age limit, the right to switch to a mobility allowance.
The policy statement of 23rd July is in close accord with the principles that led us, in 1974, to make the new mobility allowance the main mobility benefit for disabled people. The two principles were equity and flexibility—equity in relating benefit to the degree of disability and not to the ability to drive, and flexibility in providing cash for people to use as they think best in helping to meet their mobility needs. We have been seeking to make the amount of the allowance as high as possible within the available resources and consistent with meeting the proper claims of other groups, including other groups of disabled people.
Although "cash not cars" has been our broad policy since 1974, the Government did not then see compelling reasons for withdrawing the tricycle and it was retained as an alternative to the main

1035
benefit. But there is now a decisive new factor, to which my right hon. Friend referred on 23rd July. It is now clear that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. Here we have had to recognise that the future type approval requirements, linked as they will be to international standards, will make it impossible for the tricycle to remain part of our policy in the longer term.
The Shadow spokesman on the social services made it plain in the House last Friday that he recognised that this was an extremely difficult area of policy, particularly at a time of public expenditure constraint. If my right hon. Friend appeared self-congratulatory I think the hon. Member for Arundel will agree that his right hon. Friend was by no means condemnatory of the statement that was made by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not think it matters too much what respective Front Bench spokesmen said on this matter. People want to know whether the Minister can give any assurance about extra cash to finance an alternative vehicles.
Mr. Morris: As we have already announced, we hope to improve not only the amount but the value of the mobility allowance.
By its reception of my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd July, the House made plain its understanding of the basic principles of our policy. There were many sympathetic interventions from right hon. and hon. Members who have given deep study to the problems of disabled people. Of course, there are some anxieties and reservations about the way in which individual groups will be affected. I hope to comment later on a few of those, including two matters raised on 23rd July by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). He was good enough to say that he thought we were doing the right thing in phasing out the trike, just as the hon. Gentleman said that he thought we were pursuing the correct policy objective in that regard. That view will be widely respected, coming as it did in the case of the hon. Member for Wells, from a member of the all-party Disablement Group who has had a strong commitment to helping disabled people over a long period.
1036
I must deal with criticisms of the amount of the mobility allowance. I accept that the allowance is not in itself enough to buy and run a new car. Even at its current level, however, the allowance is an important contribution to the mobility costs of disabled people. Even a Minister responsible for the disabled is not free to ignore the intimidating pressures of the present economic crisis. As in every other field, there is a limit to the money available for all the improvements I have been seeking. We shall, as my right hon. Friend said, review the amount of the allowance next year. Our aim will be not only to restore but to improve its value.
Some commentators on our policy seem persuaded that we should devote far greater resources to some disabled people than others because they can drive and want to run vehicles of their own. In a letter to The Times on 28th July, Lady Sharp suggests that we should give cars on a means-tested basis to drivers who need them for work or to maintain a household. She does not propose any additional or special help for people who cannot drive but who incur especially heavy expenses in getting to work or maintaining a household.
I cannot accept that we should determine the value of benefits by reference to people's ability to drive, nor do I accept that means test, with all their implications, should apply to the main mobility benefit for disabled people. Means tests would have to be reviewed regularly, and although Lady Sharp does not spell out the implications, cars would have to be withdrawn from disabled people whose financial situation had improved. Moreover, with means testing, administrative costs would take up much too high a proportion of the total resources of money and staffing that the Government could devote to mobility benefits. In contradistinction to many Press reports, the employment factor—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Division List No. 299 [See col. 977]

Division No. 299.]

AYES

[7.40 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawson, Nigel

Aitken, Jonathan

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Alison, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lloyd, Ian

Arnold, Tom

Fox, Marcus

Loveridge, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Luce, Richard

Awdry, Daniel

Freud, Clement

MacCormick, Iain

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Baker, Kenneth

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

McCusker, H.

Banks, Robert

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Macfarlane, Neil

Beith, A. J.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

MacGregor, John

Bell, Ronald

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Benyon, W.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Madel, David

Berry, Hon Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Biffen, John

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Mates, Michael

Blaker, Peter

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

Body, Richard

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Maude, Angus

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Bottomley, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mawby, Ray

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Gray, Hamish

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Griffiths, Eldon

Mayhew, Patrick

Bradford, Rev Robert

Grimond, Rt Hon J,

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grist, Ian

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Brittan, Leon

Grylls, Michael

Mills, Peter

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hall, Sir John

Miscampbell, Norman

Brotherton, Michael

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moate, Roger

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hampson, Dr Keith

Molyneaux, James

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hannam, John

Monro, Hector

Buck, Antony

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Montgomery, Fergus

Budgen, Nick

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hastings, Stephen

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Burden, F. A.

Havers, Sir Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Butler. Adam (Bosworth)

Hawkins, Paul

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Carlisle, Mark

Hayhoe, Barney

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Carson, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Henderson, Douglas

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Channon, Paul

Heseltine, Michael

Mudd, David

Churchill, W. S.

Hicks, Robert

Neave, Airey

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Higgins, Terence L.

Nelson, Anthony

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Holland, Philip

Neubert, Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hooson, Emlyn

Newton, Tony

Clegg, Walter

Hordern, Peter

Normenton, Tom

Cockcrott, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nott, John

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Onslow, Cranley

Cope,John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally

Cordle, John H.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Osborn, John

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Costain, A. P.

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Hurd, Douglas

Paisley, Rev Ian

Crawford, Douglas

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pardoe, John

Critchley, Julian

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Parkinson, Cecil

Crouch, David

James, David

Penhaligon, David

Crowder, F. P.

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

Percival, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Jessel, Toby

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Pink, R. Bonner

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Drayson Burnaby

Jopling, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Dunlop, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ralson, Timothy

Durant, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Dykes, Hugh

Kershaw, Anthony

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kilfedder, James

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kimball, Marcus

Rees-Davies. W. R.

Elliott, Sir William

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Reid, George

Emery, Peter

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Eyre, Reginald

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon

Fairbalrn, Nicholas

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Fairgrieve, Russell

Knox, David

Ridsdale, Julian

Farr, John

Lamont, Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fell, Anthony

Lane, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Finsberg. Geoffrey

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Lawrence, Ivan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

1038

1039

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornesy)

Stanley, John

Wakenham, John

Host, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Steel, David (Poxburgh)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Sainsbury, Tim

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wall, Patrick

Scott, Nicholas

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Scott-Hopkins, James

Stradling Thomas, J.

Warren, Kenneth

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Tapsell, Peter

Watt, Hamish

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Weatherill, Bernard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wells, John

Shepherd, Colin

Tebbit, Norman

Welsh, Andrew

Shersby, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Silvester, Fred

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wiggin, Jerry

Sims, Roger

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Sinclair, Sir George

Thompson, George

Winterton, Nicholas

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Speed, Keith

Trotter, Neville

Younger, Hon George

Spence, John

Tugendhat, Christopher

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mr John Corrie and

Sproat, Iain

Viggers, Peter

Mr Spencer Le Marchant

Stainton, Keith

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Allaun, Frank

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Anderson, Donald

Dalyell, Tarn

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Archer, Peter

Davidson, Arthur

Hatton, Frank

Armstrong, Ernest

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Ashley, Jack

Davie, Denzil (Llanelli)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Heffer, Eric S.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hooley, Frank

Atkinson, Norman

Deakins, Eric

Horam, John

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Huckfield, Les

Bates, Alf

Dempsey, James

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Bean, R. E.

Dolg, Peter

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Bidwell, Sydney

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hunter, Adam

Bishop, E. S.

Dunn, James A.

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunnett, Jack

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Boardman, H.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Eadie, Alex

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Edge, Geoff

Janner, Greville

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Bradley, Tom

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

English, Michael

John, Brynmor

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Ennals, David

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Evans. Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Buchan, Norman

Evans, John (Newton)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Buchanan, Richard

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Judd, Frank

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Faulds, Andrew

Kaufman, Gerald

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Kelley, Richard

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Kerr, Russell

Campbell, Ian

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Canavan, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Kinnock, Neil

Cant, R. B.

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Lambie, David

Carmichael, Neil

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lamborn, Harry

Carter, Ray

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lamond, James

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Ford, Ben

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Cartwright, John

Forrester, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Clemitson, Ivor

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

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Freeson, Reginald

Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

Cohen, Stanley

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Coleman, Donald

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lipton, Marcus

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

George, Bruce

Litterick, Tom

Concannon, J. D.

Gilbert, Dr John

Lomas, Kenneth

Conlan, Bernard

Ginsburg, David

Loyden, Eddie

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Golding, John

Luard, Evan

Corbett, Robin

Gould, Bryan

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gourlay, Harry

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhlit)

Graham, Ted

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McCartney, Hugh

Cronin, John

Grant, John (Islington C)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Grocott, Bruce

McElhone, Frank

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Cryer, Bob

Hardy, Peter

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

1040

1041

MacKenzie, Gregor

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Mackintosh, John P.

Perry, Ernest

Thomas, Dafydd (Merloneth)

Maclennan, Robert

Phipps, Dr Colin

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McMillan Tom (Glasgow C)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

McNamara, Kevin

Prescott, John

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Madden, Max

Price, C (Lewisham W)

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

Magee, Bryan

Price, William (Rugby)

Tierney, Sydney

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Radice, Giles

Tinn, James

Mahon, Simon

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Tomlinson, John

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Richardson, Miss Jo

Tomney, Frank

Marks, Kenneth

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Torney, Tom

Marquand, David

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannook)

Tuck, Raphael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Urwin, T. W.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Maynard Miss Joan

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

Meacher, Michael

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rooker, J. W.

Waker, Terry (Kingswood)

Mendelson, John

Roper, John

Ward, Michael

Mikardo, Ian

Rose, Paul B.

Watkins, David

Millan, Bruce

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Watkinson, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Rowlands, Ted

Weetch, Ken

Miller Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Sandelson, Neville

Weitzman, David

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wellbeloved, James

Moonman, Eric

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

White, James (Pollok)

Morris Charles R. (Openshaw)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Whitlock, William

Moyle, Roland

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Newens, Stanley

Sillars, James

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Noble, Mike

Silverman, Julius

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Oakes, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Sir Thomas

Ogden, Eric

Small, William

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

O'Halloran, Michael

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Orbach, Maurice

Snape, Peter

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ovenden, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Woodall, Alec

Owen, Dr David

Stallard, A. W.

Woof, Robert

Padley, Walter

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Palmer, Arthur

Stoddart, David

Young, David (Bolton E)

park, George

Stott, Roger

Parker, John

Strang, Gavin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Parry, Robert

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Mr Joseph Harper and

Pavitt, Laurie

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Mr James Hamilton

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Swain, Thomas

Division List No. 300 [See col. 977]

Division No. 300.]

AYES

[7.55 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Bulmer, Esmond

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Aitken, Jonathan

Burden, F. A.

Elliott, Sir William

Alison, Michael

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Emery, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Jullian

Carlisle, Mark

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Arnold Tom

Carson, John

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Eyre, Reginald

Awdry Daniel

Channon, Paul

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Bain Mrs Margaret

Churchill, W. S.

Fairgrieve, Russell

Baker, Kenneth

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Farr, John

Banks Robert

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Fell, Anthony

Beith, A J.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Bell, Ronald

Clegg, Walter

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Cockcroft, John

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Benyon, W.

Cope, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cordle, John H.

Forman, Nigel

Biffen John

Cormack, Patrick

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Biggs-Davison, John

Corrie, John

Fox, Marcus

Blaker, Peter

Costain, A. P.

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Body, Richard

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Freud, Clement

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Crawford, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Crouch, David

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Crowder, F. P.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Braine Sir Bernard

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brittan Leon

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Brocklebank-Fowier, C.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Goodhart, Philip

Brotherton, Micheal

Drayson, Burnaby

Goodhew, Victor

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Goodlad, Alastair

Bryan, Sir Paul

Dunlop, John

Gorst, John

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Durant, Tony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Buck, Antony

Dykes, Hugh

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Budgen, Nick

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

1042

1043

Gray, Hamish

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Sainsbury, Tim

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Madel, David

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Grist, Ian

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Scott, Nicholas

Grylls, Michael

Marten, Neil

Scott-Hopkins, James

Hall, Sir John

Males, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Maude, Angus

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mawby, Ray

Shepherd, Colin

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shersby, Michael

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mayhew, Patrick

Silvester, Fred

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Sims, Roger

Hastings, Stephen

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Sinclair, Sir George

Havers, Sir Michael

Mills, Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hawkins, Paul

Miscampbell, Norman

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speed, Keith

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Henderson, Douglas

Molyneaux, James

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Heseltine, Michael

Monro, Hector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Hicks, Robert

Montgomery, Fergus

Sproat, Iain

Higgins, Terence L.

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Holland, Philip

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Stanley, John

Hooson, Emlyn

Morgan, Geraint

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Hordern, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stokes, John

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Mudd, David

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neave, Airey

Tapsell, Peter

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Hurd, Douglas

Neubert, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Newton, Tony

Tebbit, Norman

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Normanlcn, Tom

Temple-Morris, Peter

James, David

Nott, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

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

Onslow, Cranley

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Jessel, Toby

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Osborn, John

Thompson, George

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Jopling, Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

Trotter, Neville

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pardoe, John

Tugendhat, Christopher

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Parkinson, Cecil

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Penhaligon, David

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Kershaw, Anthony

Percival, Ian

Viggers, Peter

Kilfedder, James

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Kimball, Marcus

Pink, R. Bonner

Wakeham, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wall, Patrick

Knight, Mrs Jill

Raison, Timothy

Walters, Dennis

Knox, David

Rathbone, Tim

Warren, Kenneth

Lamont, Norman

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Watt, Hamish

Lane, David

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Weatherill, Bernard

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wells, John

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Reid, George

Welsh, Andrew

Lawrence, Ivan

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Lawson, Nigel

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wiggin, Jerry

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rhys Williams Sir Brandon

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wigley, Dafydd

Lloyd Ian

Ridsdale, Julian

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Loveridge, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas

Luce, Richard

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

MacCormick, Iain

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

McCrindle, Robert

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Younger, Hon George

McCusker, H.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Macfarlane, Neil

Ross, William (Londonderry)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

MacGregor, John

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mi Carol Mather and

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Mr Jim Lester.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Allaun, Frank

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Anderson, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Buchan, Norman

Archer, Peter

Bishop, E. S.

Buchanan, Richard

Armstrong, Ernest

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Ashley, Jack

Boardman, H.

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Ashton, Joe

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon & P)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Campbell, Ian

Atkinson, Norman

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Canavan, Dennis

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Cant, R. B.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bradley, Tom

Carmichael, Neil

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Carter, Ray

Bates, Alf

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Bean, R. E.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cartwright, John

1044

1045

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Ovenden, John

Clemilson, Ivor

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Owen, Dr David

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Padley, Walter

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Palmer, Arthur

Coleman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Park, George

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parker, John

Concannon, J. D.

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Parry, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Pavitt, Laurie

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Corbett, Robin

Janner, Greville

Pendry, Tom

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Perry, Ernest

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Crawshaw, Richard

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Cronin, John

John, Brynmor

Prescott, John

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Price, C (Lewisham W)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Radice, Giles

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Dalyell, Tam

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davidson Arthur

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kelley, Richard

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

Kerr, Russell

Robinson, Geoffrey

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kilroy Silk, Robert

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davie, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kinnock, Neil

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Deakins, Eric

Lambie, David

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lamborn, Harry

Rooker, J. W.

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Roper, John

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rose, Paul B.

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Doig, Peter

Lee, John

Rowlands, Ted

Dormand, J. D.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough}

Sandelson, Neville

Douglas-Mann Bruce

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Sedgemore, Brian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dunn, James A.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dunnett, Jack

Lipton, Marcus

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Litterick, Tom

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Eadie Alex

Lomas, Kenneth

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Edge, Geoff

Loyden, Eddie

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Luard, Evan

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

Ellis John (Brigg & Scun)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Sillars, James

Ellis,Tom (Wrexham)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Silverman, Julius

English, Michael

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Skinner, Dennis

Ennals David

McCartney, Hugh

Small, William

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McElhone, Frank

Snape, Peter

Evans, John (Newton)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spearing, Nigel

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McGuire. Michael (Ince)

Spriggs, Leslie

Faulds Andrew

MacKenzie, Gregor

Stallard, A. W.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Maclennan, Robert

Stoddart, David

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Stott, Roger

Flannery, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Gavin

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Madden, Max

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Magee, Bryan

Summerskiil, Hon Dr Shirley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Swain, Thomas

Ford Ben

Mahon, Simon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Forrester, John

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marks, Kenneth

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

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

Marquand, David

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Freeson, Reginald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tierney, Sydney

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tinn, James

George, Bruce

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tomlinson, John

Gilbert, Dr John

Meacher, Michael

Tomney, Frank

Ginsburg, David

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Torney, Tom

Golding, John

Mendelson, John

Tuck, Raphael

Gould, Bryan

Mikardo, Ian

Urwin, T. W.

Gourlay, Harry

Miliar, Bruce

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Graham, Ted

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

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

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Grocott, Bruce

Moonman, Eric

Waker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Ward, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Watkins, David

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Watkinson, John

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Moyle, Roland

Weetch, Ken

Hatton, Frank

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Weitzman, David

Hayman, Mrs Helens

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Wellbeloved, James

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Newens, Stanley

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Heffer, Eric S.

Noble, Mike

White, James (Pollok)

Hooley, Frank

Oakes, Gordon

Whitehead, Phillip

Horam, John

Ogden, Eric

Whitlock, William

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)

O'Halloran, Michael

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Orbach, Maurice

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Huckfield, Les

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

1046

1047

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Williams, Sir Thomas

Woodall, Alec

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Woof, Robert

Mr Joseph Harper and

Wilton, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mr James Hamilton

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Division List No. 301 [See col. 977]

Division No. 301.]

AYES

[8.8 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fell, Anthony

Knox, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Alison, Michael

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lane, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Arnold, Tom

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawrence, Ivan

Awdry, Daniel

Forman, Nigel

Lawson, Nigel

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Baker, Kenneth

Fox, Marcus

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Banks, Robert

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Beith, A. J.

Freud, Clement

Lloyd, Ian

Bell, Ronald

Fry, Peter

Lomas, Kenneth

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Gardiner, George (Relgate)

Luce, Richard

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

MacCormick, Iain

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

McCrindle, Robert

Biffen, John

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

McCusker, H.

Biggs-Davison, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macfariane, Neil

Blaker, Peter

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

MacGregor, John

Body, Richard

Goodhart, Philip

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Boitomley, Peter

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Marten, Neil

Braine, Sir Bernard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mates, Michael

Brittan, Leon

Gray, Hamish

Mather, Carol

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Griffiths, Eldon

Maude, Angus

Brotherton, Michael

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grist, Ian

Mawby, Ray

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grylls, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hall, Sir John

Mayhew, Patrick

Buck, Antony

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Peter

Burden, F. A.

Hannam, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Carlisle, Mark

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moate, Roger

Carson, John

Hastings, Stephen

Molyneaux, James

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Havers, Sir Michael

Monro, Hector

Channon, Paul

Hawkins, Paul

Montgomery, Fergus

Churchill, W. S.

Hayhoe, Barney

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Henderson, Douglas

Morgan, Geraint

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heseltine, Michael

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Clegg, Walter

Hicks, Robert

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Cockcroft, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Holland, Philip

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Cope,John

Hooson, Emlyn

Mudd, David

Cordle, John H.

Hordern, Peter

Neave, Airey

Cormack, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Corrie, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Neubert, Michael

Costa in, A. P.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Newton, Tony

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Normanton, Tom

Crawford, Douglas

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Nott, John

Critchley, Julian

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Onslow, Cranley

Crouch, David

Hurd, Douglas

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Crowder, F. P.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Osborn, John

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

James, David

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

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

Paisley, Rev Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Pardoe, John

Drayson, Burneby

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Parkinson, Cecil

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Penhaligon, David

Dunlop, John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Percival, Ian

Durant, Tony

Jopling, Michael

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pink, R. Bonner

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Elliott, Sir William

Kershaw, Anthony

Prior, Rt Hon James

Emery, Peter

Kilfedder, James

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rathbone, Tim

Eyre, Reginald

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Kirk, Sir Peter

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Farr, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Reid, George

1048

1049

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Speed, Keith

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Spence, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Viggers, Peter

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Ridsdale, Julian

Sproat, Iain

Wakenham, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Stainton, Keith

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Stanley, John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wall, Patrick

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Walters, Dennis

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Warren, Kenneth

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Watt, Hamish

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Stokes, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Royle, Sir Anthony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wells, John

Sainsbury, Tim

Tapsell, Peter

Welsh, Andrew

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Scott, Nicholas

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wiggin, Jerry

Scott-Hopkins, James

Tebbit, Norman

Wigley, Dafydd

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Winterton, Nicholas

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd Colin

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Shersby Michael

Thompson, George

Younger, Hon George

Sims Roger

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Sinclair, Sir George

Townsend, Cyril D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Skeet, T. H. H.

Trotter, Neville

Mr Fred Silvester and

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Mr W Benyon

NOES

Abse, Leo

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Grant, John (Islington C)

Allaun, Frank

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Grocott, Bruce

Anderson, Donald

Cryer, Bob

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Archer, Peter

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Armstrong, Ernest

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Hardy, Peter

Ashley, Jack

Dalyell, Tam

Harper, Joseph

Ashton, Joe

Davidson, Arthur

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Atkinson, Norman

Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

Hatton, Frank

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Deakins, Eric

Heffer, Eric S.

Bates, Alf

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hooley, Frank

Bean, R. E.

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Horam, John

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Bennett Andrew (Stockport N)

Dempsey, James

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Bidwell, Sydney

Doig, Peter

Huckfield, Les

Bishop, E. S.

Dormand, J. D.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Boardman, H.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dunn, James A.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dunnett, Jack

Hunter, Adam

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Eadie, Alex

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Bradley, Tom

Edge, Geoff

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Janner, Greville

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

English, Michael

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Ennals, David

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Buchan, Norman

Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)

John, Brynmor

Buchanan, Richard

Evans, John (Newton)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Faulds, Andrew

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Campbell, Ian

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Canavan, Dennis

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Judd, Frank

Cant, R. B.

Flannery, Martin

Kaufman, Gerald

Carmichael, Neil

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Kelley,Richard

Carter, Ray

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kerr, Russell

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cartwright, John

Ford, Ben

Kinnock, Neil

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Forrester, John

Lambie, David

Clemitson, Ivor

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lamborn, Harry

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

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

Lamond, James

Cohen, Stanley

Freeson, Reginald

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Coleman, Donald

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lee, John

Concannon, J. D.

George, Bruce

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Conlan, Bernard

Gilbert, Dr John

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ginsburg, David

Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

Corbett, Robin

Golding, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Gould, Bryan

Lipton, Marcus

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Gourlay, Harry

Litterick, Tom

Crawshaw, Richard

Graham, Ted

Lomas, Kenneth

Cronin, John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Loyden, Eddie

1050

1051

Luard, Evan

Padley, Walter

Strang, Gavin

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Palmer, Arthur

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Park, George

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Parker, John

Swain, Thomas

McCartney, Hugh

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McElhone, Frank

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Perry, Ernest

Thome, Stan (Preston South)

MacKenzie, Gregor

Phipps, Dr Colin

Tierney, Sydney

Mackintosh, John P.

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tinn, James

Maclennan, Robert

Prescott, John

Tomlinson, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Price, C (Lewisham W)

Tomney, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Price, William (Rugby)

Torney, Tom

Madden, Max

Radice, Giles

Tuck, Raphael

Magee, Bryan

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Urwin, T. W.

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Mahon, Simon

Roberts, Albert (Normantcn)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

Marks, Kenneth

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Marquand, David

Robinson, Geoffrey

Waker, Terry (Kingswood)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Ward, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Watkins, David

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Watkinson, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Rooker, J. W.

Weetch, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Roper, John

Weitzman, David

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Rose, Paul B.

Welibeloved, James

Mendelson, John

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mikardo, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

White, James (Pollok)

Millan, Bruce

Sandelson, Neville

Whitehead, Phillip

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Sedgemore, Brian

Whitlock, William

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Moonman, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Williams, Sir Thomas

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Moyle, Roland

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Sillars, James

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Silverman, Julius

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Newens, Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

Woodall, Alec

Noble, Mike

Small, William

Woof, Robert

Oakes, Gordon

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Ogden, Eric

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton E)

O'Halloran, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Orbach, Maurice

Spriggs, Leslie

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stallard, A. W.

Mr David Stoddart and

Ovenden, John

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Mr John Ellis

Owen, Dr David

Stott, Roger

Division List No. 302 [See col. 977]

Division No. 302.]

AYES

[8.26 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Buck, Antony

Durant, Tony

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nick

Dykes, Hugh

Alison, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Burden, F. A.

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arnold, Tom

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Elliott, Sir William

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Carlisle, Mark

Emery, Peter

Awdry, Daniel

Carson, John

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Baker, Kenneth

Channon, Paul

Eyre, Reginald

Banks, Robert

Churchill, W. S.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Bell, Ronald

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Farr, John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fell, Anthony

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Clegg, Walter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Benyon, W.

Cockcroft, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Biffen, John

Cope,John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Biggs-Davison, John

Cordle, John H.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Blaker, Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Body, Richard

Costain, A. P.

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Fox, Marcus

Bottomley, Peter

Crawford, Douglas

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford A Si)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Critchley, Julian

Freud, Clement

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Crouch, David

Fry, Peter

Bradford, Rev Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Brittan, Leon

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Brotherton, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Drayson, Burnaby

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Bryan, Sir Paul

du Cann, Rf Hon Edward

Goodhart, Philip

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Dunlop, John

Goodhew, Victor

1052

1053

Goodlad, Alastair

McCusker, H.

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Gorst, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

MacGregor, John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Sainsbury, Tim

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Gray, Hamish

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Scott, Nicholas

Griffiths Eldon

Madel, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Grist, Ian

Marten, Nell

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Grylls, Michael

Mates, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hall Sir John

Mather, Carol

Shepherd, Colin

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Maude, Angus

Shersby, Michael

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Silvester, Fred

Hampson Dr Keith

Mawby, Ray

Sims, Roger

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Sinclair, Sir George

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mayhew, Patrick

Skeet, T.H.H.

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Smith,Dudley (Warwick)

Hastings, stephen

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Speed, Keith

Havers, Sir Michael

Mills, Peter

Spence, John

Hawkins, Paul

Miscampbell, Norman

Spicer, Jim W (Dorset)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Stainton,Keith

Henderson, Douglas

Molyneaux, James

Sproat, Iain

Heseltine, Michael

Monro, Hector

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hicks, Robert

Montgomery, Fergus

Stanley, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Moore, John (Croydon C)

steel, David (Roxburgh)

Holland, Philip

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Hooson Emlyn

Morgan, Geraint

Stewart Donald (Western Isles)

Horden, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Stokes, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Tapcell, Peter

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Mudd, David

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neave, Airey

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Nelson, Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Hurd, Douglas

Neubert, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Newton, Tony

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Normanton, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

James, David

Nott, John

Thomas, Rt Hon p. (Hendon S)

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

Onslow, Cranley

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Jessel, Toby

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Thompson George

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Osborn, John

Townsend, Cyril D.

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Trotter, Neville

Jones Arthur (Daventry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Jopling, Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pardoe, John

Vannhan Dr Gerard

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Parkinson, Cecil

Viggers, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Penhallgon, David

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Kershaw, Anthony

Percival, Ian

Wakenham, John

Kilfedder, James

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kimball, Marcus

Pink, R. Bonner

Walkor-Smith Rt Hon Sir Derek

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Walter, Dennis

Kirk, Sir Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wall Patrick

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Warron, Kenneth

Knight, Mrs Jill

Ralson, Timothy

Watt, Hamish

Knox, David

Rathbone, Tim

Weatherill, Bernard

Lamont, Norman

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Wells, John

Lane, David

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Welsh, Andrew

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Reid, George

Wiggin, Jerry

Lawrence, Ivan

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Lawson, Nigel

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Winterton, Nicholas

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wigley, Dafydd

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Lewis Kenneth (Rutland)

Ridsdale, Julian

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Lloyd, Ian

Rifkind, Malcolm

Younger, Hon George

Loveridge, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

TELLER FOR THE AYES:

Luce, Richard

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

MacCormick, Iain

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr John Corrie and

McCrindle, Robert

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Mr Michael Roberts

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bates, Alf

Bradley, Tom

Allaun, Frank

Bean, R. E.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Anderson, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedflwood

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Archer, Peter

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Armstrong, Ernest

Bldwell, Sydney

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ashley, Jack

Bishop, E. S.

Brown Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Ashton, Joe

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Buchan, Norman

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Boardman, H.

Buchanan, Richard

Atkinson, Norman

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Baoier, Gordon A. T.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.(Cardiff SE)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Callaghan, Jim (Middieton & P)

Burnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Campbell, Ian

1054

1055

Canavan, Dennis

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Noblo, Mike

Cant, R. B.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Oakes, Gordon

Carmichael, Neil

Heifer, Eric S.

Ogden, Eric

Carter, Ray

Hooley, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Horam, John

Orbach, Maurice

Cartwright, John

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Ovenden, John

Clemitson, Ivor

Huckfield, Les

Owen, Dr David

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Padley, Walter

Cohan, Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Palmer, Arthur

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Park, George

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Hunter, Adam

Parker, John

Concannon, J. D.

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parry, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Pavitt, Laurie

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Corbett, Robin

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Pendry, Tom

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Janner, Greville

Perry, Ernest

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Phipps, Dr Colin

Crawshaw, Richard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Cronin, John

John, Biynmor

Prescott, John

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Price, C (Lewisham W)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Radice, Giles

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Dalyell, Tarn

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davidson, Arthur

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kelley, Richard

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

Kerr, Russell

Robinson, Geoffrey

Davies, lfor (Gower)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kinnock, Neil

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Deakins, Eric

Lamble, David

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lamborn, Harry

Rooker, J. W.

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Roper, John

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rose, Paul B.

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Doig, Peter

Lee, John

Rowlands, Ted

Dormand, J. D.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sandelson, Neville

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Sedgemore, Brian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

Selby, Harry

Dunn, James A.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dunnett, Jack

Llpton, Marcus

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Litterick, Tom

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Eadie, Alex

Lomas, Kenneth

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Edge, Geoff

Loyden, Eddie

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Luard, Evan

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Sillars, James

English, Michael

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Silverman, Julius

Ennals, David

McCartney, Hugh

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Small, William

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McElhone, Frank

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Evans, John (Newton)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spearing, Nigel

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Spriggs, Leslie

Faulds, Andrew

MacKenzie, Gregor

Stallard, A. W.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Maciennan, Robert

Stoddart, David

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Stott, Roger

Flannery, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Strang, Gavin

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Madden, Max

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Magee, Bryan

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Swain, Thomas

Ford, Ben

Mahon, Simon

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Forrester, John

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marks, Kenneth

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

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

Marquand, David

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Freeson, Reginald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Tierney, Sydney

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Tinn, James

George, Bruce

Maynard, Miss Joan

Tomilnson, John

Gilbert, Dr John

Meacher, Michael

Tomney, Frank

Ginsburg, David

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Torney, Tom

Golding, John

Mendelson, John

Tuck, Raphael

Gould, Bryan

Mlkardo, Ian

Urwin, T. W.

Gourlay, Harry

Millan, Bruce

Varley, Rt Hon Erie G.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

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

Grocott, Bruce

Mitchell, R. c. (Soton, Itchen)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Moonman, Eric

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Ward, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Watkins, David

Harper, Joseph

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Watkinson, John

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Moyle, Roland

Weetch, Ken

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Weitzman, David

Hallersley, Rt Hon Roy

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Wellbeloved, James

Hatton, Frank

Newens. Stanley

White, Frank R. (Bury)

1056

1057

White, James (Pollok)

Williams, Sir Thomas

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Whitehead, Phillip

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Whitlock, William

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr Peter Snape and

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Woodall, Alec

Mr Ted Graham

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Woof, Robert

Division List No. 303[See col. 978]

Division No. 303.]

AYES

[8.32 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fairgrieve, Russell

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Aitken, Jonathan

Farr, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Alison, Michael

Fell, Anthony

Kirk, Sir Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Arnold, Tom

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Knight, Mrs Jill

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Knox, David

Awdry, Daniel

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lamont, Norman

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lane, David

Baker, Kenneth

Forman, Nigel

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Banks, Robert

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Beith, A. J.

Fox, Marcus

Lawrence, Ivan

Bell, Ronald

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lawson, Nigel

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Freud, Clement

Le Marchant, Spencer

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Fry, Peter

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Benyon, W.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Lloyd, Ian

Bitten, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Loveridge, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Luce, Richard

Blaker, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacCormick, Iain

Body, Richard

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

McCrindle, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodhart, Philip

McCusker, H.

Bottomley, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Macfarlane, Nell

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Goodlad, Alastair

MacGregor, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Gorst, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bradford, Rev Robert

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Brittan, Leon

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Madel, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Gray, Hamish

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Brotherton, Michael

Griffiths, Eldon

Marten, Neil

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grimond, Rt Hon J

Mates, Michael

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grist, Ian

Mather, Carol

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Grylls, Michael

Maude, Angus

Buck, Antony

Hall, Sir John

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Budgen, Nick

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mawby, Ray

Bulmer, Esmond

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Burden, F. A.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mayhew, Patrick

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hannam, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Carlisle, Mark

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Carson, John

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Mills, Peter

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hastings, Stephen

Mlscampbell, Norman

Channon, Paul

Havers, Sir Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Churchill, W. S.

Hawkins, Paul

Moate, Roger

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hayhoe, Barney

Molyneaux, James

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Monro, Hector

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Henderson, Douglas

Montgomery, Fergus

Clegg, Walter

Heseltine, Michael

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Cockcroft, John

Hicks, Robert

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Higgins, Terence L.

Morgan, Geraint

Cope, John

Holland, Philip

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Cordle, John H.

Hooson, Emlyn

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Cormack, Patrick

Hordern, Peter

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Corrie, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Costain, A. P.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Mudd, David

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Neave, Airey

Crouch, David

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Nelson, Anthony

Crowder, F. P.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neubert, Michael

Davies. Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Newton, Tony

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Hurd, Douglas

Normanton, Tom

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Nott, John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Onslow, Cranley

Drayson, Burnaby

James, David

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

Osborn, John

Dunlop, John

Jessel, Toby

Page, John (Harrow West)

Durant, Tony

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Dykes, Hugh

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pardoe, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jopling, Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Elliott, Sir William

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Penhaligon, David

Emery, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Percival, Ian

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Kershaw, Anthony

Pink, R. Bonner

Eyre, Reginald

Kilfedder, James

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Kimball, Marcus

Price, David (Eastleigh)

1058

1059

Prior, Rt Hon James

Shersby, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Pyrn, Rt Hon Francis

Silvester, Fred

Tugendhat, Christopher

Raison, Timothy

Sims, Roger

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Rathbone, Tim

Sinclair, Sir George

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Viggers, Peter

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Speed, Keith

Wakeham, John

Reid, George

Spence, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Sproat, Iain

Wall, Patrick

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Stainton, Keith

Walters, Dennis

Ridsdale, Julian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Warren, Kenneth

Rifkind, Malcolm

Stanley, John

Watt, Hamish

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Weatherill, Bernard

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Wells, John

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Welsh, Andrew

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Stokes, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wigley, Dafydd

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Tapsell, Peter

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Winterton, Nicholas

Sainsbury, Tim

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tebbit, Norman

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Scott, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Younger, Hon George

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Thompson, George

Mr. D. E. Thomas and

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Mr. Douglas Crawford

Shepherd, Colin

Townsend, Cyril D.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Crawshaw, Richard

Ginsburg, David

Allaun, Frank

Cronin, John

Golding, John

Anderson, Donald

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Gould, Bryan

Archer, Peter

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Gourlay, Harry

Armstrong, Ernest

Cryer, Bob

Graham, Ted

Ashley, Jack

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ashton, Joe

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Dalyell, Tarn

Grocott, Bruce

Atkinson, Norman

Davidson, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Hardy, Peter

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Harper, Joseph

Bates, Alt

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Bean, R. E.

Deakins, Eric

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hatton, Frank

Bidwell, Sydney

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Bishop, E. S.

Dempsey, James

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Doig, Peter

Heffer, Eric S.

Boardman, H.

Dormand, J. D.

Hooley, Frank

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Horam, John

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Duffy, A. E. P.

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Dunnett, Jack

Huckfleld, Let

Bradley, Tom

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eadie, Alex

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Edge, Geoff

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen J)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Hunter, Adam

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Buchanan, Richard

Ennals, David

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Janner, Greville

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Evans, John (Newton)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Campbell, Ian

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Canavan, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Cant, R. B.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

John, Brynmor

Carmichael, Neil

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Carter, Ray

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Flannery, Martin

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Cartwright, John

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Clemitson, Ivor

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Judd, Frank

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Ford, Ben

Kaufman, Gerald

Cohen, Stanley

Forrester, John

Kelley, Richard

Coleman, Donald

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Kerr, Russell

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

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

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Concannon, J. D.

Freeson, Reginald

Kinnock, Nell

Conlan, Bernard

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lamble, David

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Lamborn, Harry

Corbett, Robin

George, Bruce

Lamond, James

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Gilbert, Dr John

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

1060

1061

Leadbitter, Ted

Ogden, Eric

Spriggs, Leslie

Lee, John

O'Halloran, Michael

Stallard, A. W.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Orbach, Maurice

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stoddart, David

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Ovenden, John

Stott, Roger

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Owen, Dr David

Strang, Gavin

Lipton, Marcus

Padley, Walter

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Lomas, Kenneth

Palmer, Arthur

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Loyden, Eddie

Park, George

Swain, Thomas

Luard, Evan

Parker, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Parry, Robert

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

McCartney, Hugh

Pendry, Tom

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Perry, Ernest

Tierney, Sydney

McElhone, Frank

Phipps, Dr Colin

Tomlinson, John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tomney, Frank

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Prescott, John

Torney, Tom

MacKenzie, Gregor

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Tuck, Raphael

Mackintosh, John P.

Price, William (Rugby)

Urwin, T. W.

Maclennan, Robert

Radice, Giles

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

McNamara, Kevin

Richardson, Miss Jo

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

Madden, Max

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Magee, Bryan

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ward, Michael

Mahon, Simon

Robinson, Geoffrey

Watkins, David

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Roderick, Caerwyn

Watkinson, John

Marks, Kenneth

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Weetch, Ken

Marquand, David

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Weitzman, David

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Rooker, J. W.

Wellbeloved, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Roper, John

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Rose, Paul B.

White, James (Pollock)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Whitehead, Phillip

Meacher, Michael

Rowlands, Ted

Whitlock, William

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Sandelson, Neville

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mendelson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Mikardo, Ian

Selby, Harry

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Millan, Bruce

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Moonman, Eric

Short, Mrs RenéRe (Wolv NE)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Woodall, Alec

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Sillars, James

Woof, Robert

Moyle, Roland

Silverman, Julius

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Skinner, Dennis

Young, David (Bolton E)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Small, William

Newens, Stanley

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

Noble, Mike

Snape, Peter

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Oakes, Gordon

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. James Tinn.

Division List No. 304 [See col. 1024]

Division No. 304.]

AYES

[10.59 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Cryer, Bob

Allaun, Frank

Buchan, Norman

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Anderson, Donald

Buchanan, Richard

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Archer, Peter

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Daiyell, Tarn

Armstrong, Ernest

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Davidson, Arthur

Ashley, Jack

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ian

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Canavan, Dennis

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Atkinson, Norman

Cant, R. B.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Carmichael, Neil

Deakins, Eric

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Carter, Ray

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Barnelt, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bates, Alf

Cartwright, John

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Bean, R. E.

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Dempsey, James

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Clemitson, Ivor

Doig, Peter

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Dormand, J. D.

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Stanley

Douglas.Mann, Bruce

Bishop, E. S.

Coleman, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Dunn, James A.

Boardman, H.

Concannon,J.D.

Dunnett, Jack

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Conlan, Bernard

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Eadie, Alex

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Corbett, Robin

Edge, Geoff

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Bradley, Tom

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Crawshaw, Richard

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Cronin, John

English, Michael

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Enrvals, David

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

1062

1063

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lipton, Marcus

Rooker, J. W.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Litterlck, Tom

Roper, John

Faulds, Andrew

Lomas, Kenneth

Rose, Paul B.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Loyden, Eddie

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Luard, Evan

Rowlands, Ted

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Sandelson, Neville

Flannery, Martin

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Sedgemore, Brian

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Selby, Harry

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McCartney, Hugh

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Ford, Ben

McElhone, Frank

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Forrester, John

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv HE)

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

MacKenzie, Gregor

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Freeson, Reginald

Mackintosh, John P.

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Maclennan, Robert

Sillars, James

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Silverman, Julius

George, Bruce

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

Gilbert, Dr John

Madden, Max

Small, William

Ginsburg, David

Magee, Bryan

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Golding, John

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Snape, Peter

Gould, Bryan

Mahon, Simon

Spearing, Nigel

Gourlay, Harry

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Spriggs, Leslie

Graham, Ted

Marks, Kenneth

Stallard, A. W.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marquand, David

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stoddart, David

Grocott, Bruce

Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

Stott, Roger

Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Strang, Gavin

Hardy, Peter

Maynard, Miss Joan

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Harrison, Welter (Wakefield)

Meacher, Michael

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Swain, Thomas

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mendeison, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hatton, Frank

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Hayman, Mrs Helena

Millan, Bruce

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Heffer, Eric S.

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Hooley, Frank

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)

Tierney, Sydney

Horam, John

Moorman. Eric

Tinn, James

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Tomlinson, John

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Tomney, Frank

Huckfield, Les

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Torney, Tom

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Moyle, Roland

Tuck, Raphael

Hughes. Mark (Durham)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Urwin, T. W.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Newens, Stanley

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Hunter, Adam

Noble, Mike

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

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Oakes, Gordon

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ogden, Eric

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

O'Halloran, Michael

Ward, Michael

Jackson. Mise Margaret (Lincoln)

Orbach, Maurice

Watkins, David

Janner, Greville

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Watkinson, John

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Ovenden, John

Weetch, Ken

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Owen, Dr David

Weltzman, David

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Padley, Walter

Wellbeloved, James

John, Brynmor

Palmer, Arthur

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Park, George

White, James (Pollock)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Parker, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Parry, Robert

Whitlock, William

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Pavitt, Laurie

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Judd, Frank

Pendry. Tom

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Kaufman, Gerald

Perry, Ernest

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Kelley, Richard

Phipps, Dr Colin

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Kerr, Russell

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Prescott, John

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Kinnock, Nell

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Lamble, David

Price, William (Rugby)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Lamborn, Harry

Radice, Giles

Woodall, Alec

Lamond, James

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Woof, Robert

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Leadbitter, Ted

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lee, John

Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Robinson, Geoffrey

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Roderick, Caerwyn

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. James Hamillton.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Benyon, W.

Altken, Jonathan

Baker, Kenneth

Berry, Hon Anthony

Alison, Michael

Banks, Robert

Biffen, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Beith, A. J.

Biggs-Davison, John

Arnold, Tom

Bell, Ronald

Blaker, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Body, Richard

Awdry, Daniel

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

1064

1065

Botlomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hall, Sir John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morgan, Geraint

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Brittan, Leon

Hannam, John

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Brotherton, Michael

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Mudd, David

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hastings, Stephen

Neave, Airey

Bryan, Sir Paul

Havers, Sir Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hawkins, Paul

Neubert, Michael

Buck, Antony

Hayhoe, Barney

Newton, Tony

Budgen, Nick

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Normanton, Tom

Bulmer, Esmond

Henderson, Douglas

Nott, John

Burden, F. A.

Heseltine, Michael

Onslow, Cranley

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hicks, Robert

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Carlisle, Mark

Higgins, Terence L.

Osborn, John

Carson, John

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow West)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hooson, Emlyn

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Channon, Paul

Hordern, Peter

Paisley, Rev Ian

Churchill, W. S.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pardoe, John

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pattle, Geoffrey

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Panhaligon, David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Percival, Ian

Clegg, Walter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Cockcroft, John

Hunt, John (Bromley)

Pink, R. Bonner

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Hurd, Douglas

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Cope, John

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cordle, John H.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Cormack, Patrick

James, David

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Corrie, John

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

Raison, Timothy

Costain, A. P.

Jessel, Toby

Rathbone, Tim

Crawford, Douglas

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Critchley, Julian

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Crouch, David

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Crowder, F. P.

Jopling, Michael

Reid, George

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Drayson, Burnaby

Kilfedder, James

Ridsdale, Julian

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kimball, Marcus

Rifkind, Malcolm

Dunlop, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Durant, Tony

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Dykes, Hugh

Kirk, Sir Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knight. Mrs Jill

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Elliott, Sir William

Knox, David

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Emery, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Lane, David

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Eyre, Reginald

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Sainsbury, Tim

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lawson, Nigel

Scott, Nicholas

Farr, John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fell, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lloyd, Ian

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Luce, Richard

Shepherd, Colin

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

MacCormick, Iain

Shersby, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

McCrindle, Robert

Silvester, Fred

Forman, Nigel

McCusker, H.

Sims, Roger

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Macfarlane, Nell

Sinclair, Sir George

Fox, Marcus

MacGregor, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick

Freud, Clement

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Speed, Keith

Fry, Peter

McNair-WiIson, P. (New Forest)

Spence, John

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Madel, David

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Marten, Neil

Sproat, Iain

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Mates, Michael

Stainton, Keith

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Mather, Carol

Stanbrook, Ivor

Glyn, Dr Alan

Maude, Angus

Stanley, John

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Goodhart, Philip

Mawby, Ray

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mayhew, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Gorst, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stokes, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mills, Peter

Tapsell, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Gray, Hamish

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Grieve, Percy

Moate, Roger

Tebbit, Norman

Griffiths, Eldon

Molyneaux, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Grimond, Rt Hon J,

Monro, Hector

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Grist, Ian

Montgomery, Fergus

Thomas. Dafydd (Merioneth)

1066

1067

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Wiggin, Jerry

Thompson, George

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Wigley, Dafydd

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Townsend, Cyril d.

Wall, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Walter, Dennis

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Tugendhat, Christopher

Warren, Kenneth

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

van Straubenzee, W. R

Watt, Hamish

Younger, Hon George

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Weatherill, Bernard

Viggers, Peter

Wells, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Cecil Parkinson and

Wakeham, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Gas (Complaints)
  Gas (Complaints)
  Legal Professions (Advertising)
  Legal Professions (Advertising)
  Price Code
  Price Code
  Bread
  Bread
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Raw Materials
  Raw Materials
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Suspected Persons (Ex Gratia Payments)
  Suspected Persons (Ex Gratia Payments)
  Human Rights (Legislation)
  Human Rights (Legislation)
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Crime (Convictions)
  Crime (Convictions)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Driving Offences (Motorways)
  Driving Offences (Motorways)
  Larceny Charges (Young Persons)
  Larceny Charges (Young Persons)
  Dangerous Escapees
  Dangerous Escapees
  Life Imprisonment
  Life Imprisonment
  Parkhurst Prison (Escape)
  Parkhurst Prison (Escape)
  Schoolchildren (Remands in Custody)
  Schoolchildren (Remands in Custody)
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Community Development Projects (Documents)
  Community Development Projects (Documents)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Urban Deprivation Unit
  Urban Deprivation Unit
  Priority Area Development
  Priority Area Development
  Acklington Prison
  Acklington Prison
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Death Certification and Coroners
  Death Certification and Coroners
  Commission for Racial Equality (Chairman)
  Commission for Racial Equality (Chairman)
  Essex Probation and After-Care Service
  Essex Probation and After-Care Service
  MINISTERIAL ADVISERS
  MINISTERIAL ADVISERS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  NATO (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  NATO (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  ILFORD
  ILFORD
  STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE
  STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE
  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  MINISTERIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY PAY
  MINISTERIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY PAY
  HEALING
  HEALING
  FIFE
  FIFE
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
  THE HAGUE
  THE HAGUE
  REIGATE
  REIGATE
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  FRANCE
  FRANCE
  "FUTURE WORLD TRENDS"
  "FUTURE WORLD TRENDS"
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  LEICESTERSHIRE
  LEICESTERSHIRE
  COPPULL
  COPPULL
  CABINET MEETINGS
  CABINET MEETINGS
  WORKERS (REPRESENTATION)
  WORKERS (REPRESENTATION)
  CHINA
  CHINA
  Mr. ANDREW CUNNINGHAM
  Mr. ANDREW CUNNINGHAM
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Storage (Wash Barrages)
  Water Storage (Wash Barrages)
  Effluent
  Effluent
  M25 (Hunton Bridge-Maple Cross)
  M25 (Hunton Bridge-Maple Cross)
  Rents
  Rents
  Inland Waterways
  Inland Waterways
  Water Conservation Valve
  Water Conservation Valve
  Road Ramps
  Road Ramps
  Rate Rebates (Manchester)
  Rate Rebates (Manchester)
  Building Societies Association
  Building Societies Association
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Building Trades Employers' Federation
  Building Trades Employers' Federation
  Railway Crossings
  Railway Crossings
  House Mortgages (Leicester)
  House Mortgages (Leicester)
  Railway Subsidies (Yorkshire)
  Railway Subsidies (Yorkshire)
  Council House Tenancies
  Council House Tenancies
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Rochester Way (Relief Road)
  Rochester Way (Relief Road)
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Colne Park Caravan Site (West Drayton)
  Colne Park Caravan Site (West Drayton)
  M40
  M40
  Clayton Hall, Chorley
  Clayton Hall, Chorley
  Countryside Policy (Review)
  Countryside Policy (Review)
  Haringey (Tenants' Co-operatives)
  Haringey (Tenants' Co-operatives)
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
ENERGY
  Petroleum Products
  Petroleum Products
  Miners' Concessionary Coal
  Miners' Concessionary Coal
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Offshore Oil (Licensing)
  Offshore Oil (Licensing)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Young People (Holiday Pursuits)
  Young People (Holiday Pursuits)
  Inter-Governmental Talks (Dublin)
  Inter-Governmental Talks (Dublin)
  Supplementary Benefit (Qualification)
  Supplementary Benefit (Qualification)
  Crime
  Crime
  Bugging
  Bugging
  Terrorism (Casualties)
  Terrorism (Casualties)
  Ebrington Barracks, Londonderry
  Ebrington Barracks, Londonderry
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Youth Services
  Youth Services
  Comprehensive Schools (Certificate of Secondary Education)
  Comprehensive Schools (Certificate of Secondary Education)
  Teacher Education Institutions
  Teacher Education Institutions
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Mature Students (Further Education)
  Mature Students (Further Education)
  Postgraduate Students (Finance)
  Postgraduate Students (Finance)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Montreaux Convention
  Montreaux Convention
  USSR Ship "Kiev"
  USSR Ship "Kiev"
  Ocean Island
  Ocean Island
  United Nations Decade for Women
  United Nations Decade for Women
  Gilbert Islands (Shipping and Air Services)
  Gilbert Islands (Shipping and Air Services)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  France (Mr. Reginald Gee)
  France (Mr. Reginald Gee)
  Uganda (Mrs. Bloch)
  Uganda (Mrs. Bloch)
  Kenyan Asians
  Kenyan Asians
  Malawi Asians
  Malawi Asians
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SCOTLAND
  European Community Aid (Ayrshire)
  European Community Aid (Ayrshire)
  Fire Prevention
  Fire Prevention
  Roads Development (Ayrshire)
  Roads Development (Ayrshire)
  Acknowledgment Payments
  Acknowledgment Payments
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptations)
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptations)
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Edinburgh District Council (Land Purchase)
  Edinburgh District Council (Land Purchase)
  Employment
  Employment
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Oils and Fats
  Oils and Fats
  Fisheries Policy
  Fisheries Policy
  Animals (Exports)
  Animals (Exports)
  European Community Ministers of Agriculture
  European Community Ministers of Agriculture
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Horticulture (Fuel Costs)
  Plutonium (Irish Sea Organisms)
  Plutonium (Irish Sea Organisms)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Expenditure (Savings)
  Expenditure (Savings)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Government Statements
  Government Statements
  Official Report
  Official Report
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (HEALTH AND RECREATION)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (HEALTH AND RECREATION)
INDUSTRY
  Steelworks (Port Talbot)
  Steelworks (Port Talbot)
  Parcels and Packets
  Parcels and Packets
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Letter Post Services
  Letter Post Services
  British Leyland and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  British Leyland and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
INDUSTRY
  Postal Charges
  Postal Charges
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  LONRHO LTD.
  LONRHO LTD.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Yields
  Tax Yields
  Wife Allowance
  Wife Allowance
  "Save As You Earn" Schemes
  "Save As You Earn" Schemes
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Public Sector
  Public Sector
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Fraudulent Claims (Child Allowances)
  Fraudulent Claims (Child Allowances)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  National Insurance (Employers' Contributions)
  National Insurance (Employers' Contributions)
  Personal Expenditure
  Personal Expenditure
  Survey Prices
  Survey Prices
  Land (Wales)
  Land (Wales)
  Employment
  Employment
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Newham (Public Expenditure)
  Newham (Public Expenditure)
  Tax Revenue (North Sea Oil)
  Tax Revenue (North Sea Oil)
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
TRADE
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Japan and Taiwan
  Japan and Taiwan
  Transport Security (International Conventions)
  Transport Security (International Conventions)
  Pilotage
  Pilotage
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Woollen Jacket Imports
  Woollen Jacket Imports
  Aircraft Movements (Night Flying)
  Aircraft Movements (Night Flying)
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Anti-dumping Orders
  Anti-dumping Orders
  European Community
  European Community
DEFENCE
  University Air Squadrons (Training)
  University Air Squadrons (Training)
  University Training Squadrons and Officer Training Corps
  University Training Squadrons and Officer Training Corps
  RAF Accommodation (Stanton)
  RAF Accommodation (Stanton)
  Warships
  Warships
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Masirah and Salalah
  Masirah and Salalah
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Commonwealth War Cemeteries (Staff)
  Commonwealth War Cemeteries (Staff)
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  Personnel
  Personnel
WALES
  Otters
  Otters
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Incest (Allegation)
  Incest (Allegation)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Invalidity and Child Allowances
  Invalidity and Child Allowances
  Life Expectancy
  Life Expectancy
  Cigarettes (Advertising)
  Cigarettes (Advertising)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Medicinal Products (Self-Service Sales)
  Medicinal Products (Self-Service Sales)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Rochdale Infirmary
  Rochdale Infirmary
  Married Couples
  Married Couples
  Mothers
  Mothers
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Australia Antigen
  Australia Antigen
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Dentistry (Schools)
  Dentistry (Schools)
  Motor Accident Casualties
  Motor Accident Casualties
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Small Businesses (Strikes)
  Small Businesses (Strikes)
  Unemployed Persons (Working Days Lost)
  Unemployed Persons (Working Days Lost)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Employment Office Areas
  Employment Office Areas
  Wigan
  Wigan
  Pay Limits
  Pay Limits
  Disabled Persons (Birmingham)
  Disabled Persons (Birmingham)
  Wages
  Wages
  Employment Offices (Scotland)
  Employment Offices (Scotland)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
The Lord Camoys—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TONGA: FISHING FACILITIES
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that the Kingdom of Tonga has recently offered to the Soviet Union base facilities for a fishing fleet and what they believe the implications of such an offer to be for British policy in that area.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I have no knowledge of any such offer having been made by the Kingdom of Tonga. However, I understand that a fisheries delegation from the USSR is now in the Kingdom. This is, of course, entirely a matter for the Kingdom of Tonga.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? May I ask what interpretation he puts on the report, dated 27th July from Nauru, that the Crown Prince Tu'ipelehake, the Prime Minister of Tonga, stated that Tonga will delay a decision on granting the Soviet Union a fishing base until the United Nations Conference completes its review of the law of the sea? Does this not imply that such an offer is at least under discussion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not hazard an interpretation on that article, certainly not at Question Time. However, I understand what the noble Lord, quite rightly, is seeking: it is an assurance that we are
1462
fully aware of the importance of continued co-operation between ourselves and the Kingdom of Tonga, an independent sovereign country. They are fellow members of the Commonwealth and, as in the past, we shall by development aid and technical assistance seek to maintain that close connection with them.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there is some misunderstanding because of a reference in the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Elton? In the Question he refers to our policy in that area. Is it not a fact that we no longer have any policy in that area; that we have withdrawn all our forces and reliances? Is not that the situation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the policy laid down in the Defence Review which is, as he rightly implies, to concentrate our forces on the NATO sector.
Lord SHINWELL: Then, my Lords, is not that an admission that we have withdrawn our forces? Why do we speak about our policy in that area when we have none? Why do we continue to indulge in pretensions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend says, "indulge in pretensions". He answers his own questions according to his own taste. I refer him once more to the Defence Review as published by the Government.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we on this side are profoundly downcast by the implications of that Review, particularly those alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? Does he accept that this places an even greater onus upon those in charge of our diplomatic and aid services in that district to contribute to the stability of an area which, although it is on the other side of the globe, affects us intimately?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, of course, my Lords. The noble Lord and the Opposition are entitled to their views on the Defence Review. I join with him in the emphasis he has put on the importance of continuing aid and technical assistance in this area. Here is a field where we can strengthen the

1463
bonds between us and old friends of ours in the Pacific. We propose to do this with Tonga as with other parts of the Pacific.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government consulting with other Commonwealth Governments in the area who have an interest in what goes on, such as the Government of New Zealand?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. We are in close consultation with both Australia and New Zealand.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES: TRAINING
11.5 a.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what courses are held on a national basis in (a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland for the more advanced training of special constables and what opportunities there are for selected special constables of the appropriate rank and experience to attend courses such as those at Bramshill which are designed primarily for the regular police forces.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, there are no central arrangements for the advanced training of special constables in either England and Wales or Scotland. The training of special constables is a matter for individual chief officers of police.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is not unexpected? While accepting that attendance at a course at Bramshill would be a very special case, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that the standards of training for special constables in some few police forces is very casual and far below what it ought to be? May I ask him to draw the attention of all the chief constables to the great services which the Regular Army has performed for the Territorial Army giving
1464
help with training at all levels over the past 50 years and more? That is something which is far in advance of what happens in any part of the police force in this country today.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Working Party of the Police Advisory Board is at the moment looking into the question of special constables. Training is one of the matters they are considering. Following the submission of that report, the matter will undoubtedly be considered by all chief officers of police.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions which he was unable to answer—or did not answer—in regard to my Unstarred Question of March 1975? Is the strength of the special constables rising? It was 23,000 according to my latest information, with an establishment of 114,000. Is that strength improving?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the strength of the special constabulary is still around 23,000. Establishments are a matter not for the Home Office but for individual chief officers of police.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied with that?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, undoubtedly we regard this as a matter most appropriately dealt with by chief constables. It is for them to decide what is an appropriate establishment for special constables. It is recognised both by the Home Office and the chief officers of police that special constables do extremely valuable work. This is a matter for chief officers and we can safely leave it in their hands.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the reply from my noble friend, is it correct to state that the police authorities will be brought into consultation on recommendations from the chief constable for any particular area as to the action and proposals put forward? Would my noble friend agree that it would be wrong to interfere with the recommendations that come from the chief constable to the local police authority?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I think there is no real difference on this issue. We recognise that special constables do valuable work and that it is right to allow questions of appropriate levels of establishment to be decided by chief officers, as my noble friend has pointed out. I do not think this is a matter in which we should interfere, but undoubtedly there is a widespread recognition by chief officers of police that special constables do very valuable work and certainly play a most important part in supplementing the strength of the regular police.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask whether all chief constables recruit women as special constables?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the answer to that is almost certainly, Yes. So far as I am aware, men and women are in the special constable forces in every police area in England and Wales.

INCAPACITY CERTIFICATES
11.15 a.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have evidence of patients continuing to receive certificates of incapacity over long periods for border-line conditions such as nervous debility.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can confirm both that certificates do on occasions run on for longer than the diagnosis on the certificate would have suggested was likely, and that the Department of Health and Social Security control procedures will operate in these circumstances to provide further evidence in relation to the patient's claim to benefit. If the noble Lord has any particular difficulty in mind, I hope that he will give me further details so that I can look into the matter more closely.
Lord SEGAL: Yes, my Lords; but is it not a fact that an aggrieved patient who is certified by a doctor as fit for work can
1466
retaliate by taking his name off that doctor's list, taking with him the whole of his family, with a consequent fall in that doctor's income? Is not the regional medical officer who certifies the patient as fit for work starting a whole train of investigations which involve him and others in troublesome and time-consuming procedures? Is not the whole machinery of medical certification creaking with anomalies, and badly in need of a complete overhaul?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no evidence, and I have gone into this matter very carefully, which would support the statement that the procedures are not serving a useful purpose, or that they are in any way out of date. If the patient has a certificate and the incapacity goes on for longer than is normally considered to be right, I think there is an obligation to investigate the matter. At the risk of incurring your Lordships' displeasure by being longer in my reply than I might have been—and I know that my noble friend Lord Shinwell complained to the House quite recently about the length of my replies—there are about 650,000 references to the Regional Medical Service each year for a second opinion on incapacity. In about 60 per cent, of the references incapacity is confirmed, but in about 10 per cent. of the 650,000, the claimant is found to be capable of work. In the remaining 30 per cent. the claimants themselves, when they are called before the Regional Medical Service, cease to make any claim. I think that alone rather suggests that the procedures are highly desirable.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would it not be much fairer to invite the doctors to submit confidential reports direct to the Department of Health, under safeguards which would not involve them in loss of income? Also, should not civilian medical boards be conducted by more than one medical officer, as is done in the Services, and preferably with an experienced lay official from the Department present, to give advice in borderline cases where an element of doubt exists?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the whole purpose of the procedure is that if there is a borderline case, the Regional Medical Service provide facilities for a second opinion. With regard to the other

1467
suggestions made by my noble friend, I am sure that my Department and the Government would want to examine them.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although I heard him mention my name, I did not hear the reference? Would he tell me what crime I have now committed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, when your Lordships were discussing procedures in this House, I seem to have read in Hansard that when the length of answers was raised, the noble Lord asked the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether my attention had been drawn to that particular point.

SUMMER RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will make a Statement about business. When I announced the dates of the Summer Recess, I told the House that a Sitting for Royal Assent would be necessary, or might be necessary, in August. The Sitting will take place on Friday, 6th August, at 11 a.m. The business expected on that day will be the Consolidated Fund Bill, Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Drought Bill, if any, and Royal Assent.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
11.21 a.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to make possible a
1468
change in the Liberal representation at the European Parliament from 1st October, when I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be replaced by a Member of another place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order of 8th July 1975 designating Lord Gladwyn a member of the European Parliament be discharged with effect from 1st October 1976.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think it would be a pity to let this moment pass without a few words of regret that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be going no more to the European Parliament.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord CHELWOOD:My Lords, the refusal of the Labour Party to send a delegation to the European Parliament in January 1973 enabled Mr. Health, without much difficulty, to arrange for two representatives of the Liberal Party—a Party which has always been staunchly in favour of the European Community—to go to the European Parliament. As joint Deputy Leader of the Conservative delegation, with Sir Peter Kirk, as he now is, my Leader, I worked very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, as a member of the key Political Committee for some two years, and the three of us found a broad measure of agreement on almost every major topic that we had to consider. If I may say so, the noble Lord brought tireless energy, enthusiasm and great experience to his work which he always approached from the broad national point of view, and never from the narrow national point of view.
I feel that it is a very great strain indeed on the Liberal Party being represented by only one delegate in the European Parliament, especially as that delegate is now to be a Member of another place. It is hard on all Members of another place who have to carry the dual mandate, which I myself did for a year before I joined your Lordships in the Upper House, and it will be particularly hard on the sole representative of the Liberal Party, for whom I feel very much indeed.
I greatly regret that the Liberal Party is so under-represented on the British

1469
Delegation, and hope it will not be long before we have direct elections to the European Parliament involving some element of proportional representation. That may be impossible in 1978, but I do not think it should be beyond the wit of man, with a little ingenuity and a little magnanimity, to find a way of giving the Liberal Party more than one representative. I think that we owe the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, a great debt of gratitude for his splendid work.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, without associating myself in any way with some of the remarks that have just been made, I should like to say that even these ranks of Tuscany cannot forbear to shed a tear over the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. We have listened at Luxembourg and Strasbourg to many notable contributions from him, and I may say that in private he has always been most helpful to those of us who have sought his expert advice on the European Parliament, and on European affairs in general.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I can only say that I am deeply touched both by the very kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, about my activities in the European Parliament, and by the equally charming contribution of the representative of the ranks of Tuscany! I do not know whether all noble Lords are aware of the reason why, after the reduction of the Liberal Party's representation from two to one, I stayed on for so long in the European Parliament. The reason was, first, that I was getting through a defence resolution on which I had been working for several years, and this was achieved only last December. Thereafter it was agreed that I should, of course, make way for a member of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, because that was obviously desirable, if possible. But it was not possible for various reasons until the other day when, owing to a reallocation of duties, Mr. Russell Johnston was freed from certain responsibilities and he is now taking over from me on 1st October.
I might just say that on that date I shall have been a member of the European Parliament for nearly four years and I can assure your Lordships that, though I have greatly enjoyed my participation in the activities of a body which, I think, will go from strength to strength, the 450 odd
1470
working days that I have spent outside this country, to say nothing of the 60,000-odd miles that I have travelled in aero-planes, at my advanced age of 76, is really quite enough. Without being in the slightest degree controversial might I also add that, as I see it, it will not be at all easy—perhaps that is the least that can be said—to find 81 Members of this Parliament in 1978 willing to serve in the European Parliament in the, as I think regrettable event, of our deciding to nominate them. But on this subject I shall hope, as a Member of this House, to participate in the many and interesting debates which I am sure we shall have from October onwards, if, as I sincerely trust, the Convention on Direct Elections to the European Parliament is approved by this Parliament when it comes up for ratification in the autumn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
11.27 a.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Chelwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to the Resolution:
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and I shall be grateful if I may have two minutes of your Lordships' time. I explained on Second Reading the overdue need for realistic maximum fines if the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended in 1967, was to be made reasonably effective again. New maximum fines of £100 and £25 do no more than offset the fall in the value of money in the last 22 years, and do no more than bring the maximum fines into line with recent legislation in other conservation fields.

1471
I hope that in the next Session it may be possible for detailed consideration to be given to other amendments to the Protection of Birds Act 1954, but this is not the time to discuss them.
Today, it remains only for me to thank your Lordships on both sides of the House most warmly for supporting me on Second Reading, when I gave a fairly detailed explanation of the need for this amending legislation; and, in particular, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the very complimentary, though quite untrue and unnecessary, things that he was kind enough to say about me. So I thank your Lordships' House for allowing this overdue measure such a quick and easy passage. There is in the country a welcome and growing interest in natural history and in conservation generally. I believe that this modest amendment will bring widespread pleasure and approval to a great many people and, may I add, I hope protection for the wild birds which we seek to protect.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,.—(Lord Chelwood.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION BILL
11.30 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions but is chiefly important for Clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to a major aspect of Government policy on education. This issue is highly controversial; the ideological background was discussed at length in another place. I hope that we shall be able to deal with it rather more quickly here.
In another place the time devoted to the Bill was more than was devoted to the whole of the Education Act 1944. That Act was 10 times the size of this Education Bill and was concluded in 14 Sittings on the Floor of the House. The accusation that the Government have tried to rush the Bill through is absurd. But I realise that the Second Reading is a time when the ideological points can be well and
1472
truly made. I hope that, when we come to Committee, during which on every clause or Amendment the Opposition can quite easily defeat the Government if it wants to, the ideological points will not be pursued and we can concentrate on the details of the Bill. The Government will, of course, consider carefully any suggestions which your Lordships may make for improving its effectiveness.
I begin by giving a short and pared-down account of the origins of this controversial Bill. I think it fair to say that the evils of the 11-plus examination provided the jumping off ground for the whole comprehensive movement. It was felt by parents, educationalists, teachers and indeed by children, that the decision as to whether the child goes forward to grammar school or sideways to secondary modern was a decision of such importance that it was unreasonable that it should be decided at 11 years old; partly because of the pressure it put on the children and partly because of a wide margin of inaccurate placements.
The psychological traumas for parents, children and, indeed, for headmasters and others, have been described again and again. I do not think many people today believe that selection at this age is the right way to deal with the education of our children. It has become increasingly thought of as a division between sheep and goats. Now, this being so, there had to be some alternative and the comprehensive movement, which had started before even the 11-plus argument became very strong, was the movement to which all eyes turned.
There is no doubt that the comprehensive movement has been extremely successful over a large part of the area which it has covered. I do not think anyone would deny that in rural areas—such as Anglesey, one of the first to have gone comprehensive—it has made sense to educate together all the children from a wide area, children of a diversity of social backgrounds and intellectual attainments. The alleged drawbacks of comprehensive education appear in urban areas; it may be more difficult there to get a satisfactory social and intellectual mixture; first because the area served by a particular school may itself not have such a mixture; and second because such a school may well suffer from the presence

1473
of a long-established grammar school "creaming off" the most able and ambitious pupils.
It is in areas such as these that people fear change. They fear that able pupils will lose the opportunities for the specialised provision that grammar schools can offer. On the contrary, we believe that, although the education given by many grammar schools has been first class—there is no argument about this—if grammar schools take away the ablest pupils then one leaves comprehensive schools with the top level of ability removed and the whole quality and standard of the education they provide is prejudiced.
In essence, we are confronted with a simple problem. The 11-plus is bad and must go. The solution to this problem—the comprehensive school—is generally agreed to be satisfactory in most areas. In some areas there is resistance, partly because of the social problems that all schools, comprehensive no less than others, may face—problems which many local authorities and teachers are working hard and successfully to mitigate— and partly because of the prestige and competition of the grammar schools.
The introduction of comprehensive education means that the grammar school, which in itself may be extremely good, will inevitably change, we think not necessarily for the worse. I believe that the solution is to accept changes in some of the characteristics of the grammar school, which benefits a minority, in order to produce really effective comprehensive schools for all and thereby do away with the evils of the 11-plus. Many of your Lordships will know of former grammar schools who have merged successfully and willingly with local secondary modern schools to make first-class comprehensives. It can be done and we all know it can be done.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that section of his speech, may I ask whether he would concede that, despite what he said about the 11-plus, it is not absolute and there has always been exchange when it has been found that children may have been wrongly placed academically? Would he concede that there has been a flow between the
1474
comprehensive school and the grammar school?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, there has been this effect in some cases, but not in all. I do not believe that this has been a universal characteristic of the application of the 11-plus, although it would have been the correct application. But I could not admit that this was the general practice throughout.
The abolition of selection for entry to schools—of the 11-plus or its equivalent—does not of course mean that there will be no attempt to assess the abilities and meet the needs of individual pupils. Indeed far from it. It is within the comprehensive school, not within a selective system, that such assessment may and does take place more effectively. For in a comprehensive school such a process can take place on a continuous basis; and it can take account of the needs of pupils who are good at one or two academic subjects but whose other strengths lie on the practical side—whereas in the selective system these two aspects of education cannot be effectively married together.
So the comprehensive system does not mean that the needs of different individuals are suppressed in some monolithic uniformity; if any of your Lordships fear that this would be so, I invite you to read a recent book by Hunter Davies, The Creighton Report, which illustrates wonderfully the variety that can exist within a comprehensive school. No, my Lords, the comprehensive school heightens variety rather than suppresses it; but heightens it within an environment of shared learning rather than of segregation; an environment in which teachers are free to organise the educational process in whatever way seems best to enable the individual to go at his own pace, along the road best suited for him and in full consultation with parents whether by streaming classes on the basis of ability, or by setting classes subject by subject, or by some other method—but always in the company of his fellows, sharing an experience which cuts across the divisions of ability, interest and background.
This, my Lords, put very shortly, is the argument of my Party and indeed of the majority of educationalists, and the argument which this Bill is now making

1475
finally the law of the land. We now have three-quarters of maintained secondary school pupils in comprehensive schools. The great majority of local education authorities and governors of voluntary schools wish to complete this process as soon as possible, and all the evidence is that over the next few years, even though the resources available will not be increasing as hitherto, significant progress will continue to be made.
The ideal, the principle, of comprehensive secondary education, is thus widely accepted. Only in a few areas is there now resistance to that principle. To some extent that resistance perhaps stems from genuine doubts and fears; but for the most part I suspect that it arises simply from an unwillingness to face progress and change, not only educational but social; there are always those who wish to preserve an older and simpler order of things; the Government may respect their views, but can wait for them no longer.
I must emphasise that we have waited long enough already. It is right that the change from selective to comprehensive education should be an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary change. So it has been, as, one by one, over the past decade, local education authorities of all political complexions have come to accept the comprehensive principle and have put in motion the procedures necessary to give effect to that principle. Both the 1964 Labour Government, and the present Government, proceeded as far as possible by persuasion and encouragement. In 1970 when it was clear that some authorities had failed to respond to five years' persuasion and the example of their fellows, a Bill was brought in, similar in some respects to that now before your Lordships' House, but that Bill did not reach the Statute Book before the General Election in that year.
Such was the progress of the comprehensive ideal between 1970 and 1974, however, that on return to power the present Government, far from introducing legislation immediately, began a further round of persuasion and discussion. Only after nearly two years of this was the present Bill introduced in another place—introduced, my Lords, with enthusiasm and yet with regret: enthu-
1476
siasm, because it is right that the principle of comprehensive secondary education should be enshrined in law; regret, that it should be necessary to legislate after seeking for so long to proceed by agreement.
Clause 1 of the Bill, then, lays down the principle that secondary education should be fully comprehensive. That principle, as there spelled out, admits of only two exceptions. One is the need to select pupils for special educational treatment, by virtue not so much of ability as of disability. The other is selection for specialised education in music and dancing; there is a number of schools, mostly independent, which specialise in these fields in which high talent, though rare, can often be spotted at an early age and may need to be nurtured from that age by a special educational regime. Under this head come not only all kinds of dance schools and schools for instrumental musicians but also choir schools. It will be permissible in the case of the small number of maintained schools which serve cathedral or church choirs to admit pupils on the basis of their ability in choral singing, and, in the case of independent choir schools, for local education authorities to support pupils selected on the same basis.
The comprehensive principle thus described and qualified is used in two ways as the basis for the provisions of this Bill. First, local education authorities are obliged to have regard to it in all their powers and duties relating to secondary education. They are not obliged to put it into effect straight away, because in many areas they are in no position to do so. Despite the enormous progress made over the past few years, simply by use of the resources made available for secondary education in the normal course of events, there are certainly—and the Government fully recognise this—areas where enough money to complete reorganisation is not going to be available for some time. But there are also areas where the resources are available but the will may be lacking, and it is for this reason that Clauses 2 and 3 are in the Bill to enable the process to be pushed forward. It would not, however, be feasible to lay on all authorities a general requirement to comply with the comprehensive principle, whether immediately or at some specific date in the future, and this clause does not do so.

1477
But they are obliged to have regard to the principle—not, of course, in isolation but along with other requirements of the Education Acts—and this will ensure that nothing is done which will unnecessarily hinder steady progress towards the goal.
Second—and now, my Lords, I am turning to Clauses 2 and 3—the Bill gives the Secretary of State specific powers to require further progress in implementation of the comprehensive principle. He cannot himself take steps to do this. Only local education authorities—or, in the case of voluntary schools, the governors of those schools—can take the action necessary to end selection in an area. That action includes changes in the character of grammar or secondary modern schools to enable them to take a comprehensive intake; it may also include the establishment, enlargement or discontinuance of schools as part of the necessary reorganisation. The Secretary of State can require them to submit their proposals for ending selection in conformity with Government policy; and, where those proposals include (as they almost invariably will) any of the things I have specified, and where they are not manifestly unsuitable or inconsistent with the comprehensive principle, and where they represent firm short-term plans for implementation within five years, he can direct that they he treated as proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Act.
Section 13 provides that any proposals for the changes I have already mentioned require the Secretary of State's approval and that public notice must be given of them to enable the public to object. If the proposals are approved, then the provisions of Section 13, together with the provisions of this Bill, will require the proposer to implement them. Where proposals are not susceptible of such treatment, because they are long-term or do not fall within the scope of Section 13, they will be neither approved nor rejected, but noted; and in due course, as the plans advance, the Secretary of State can go back and request proposals for short-term implementation. Where proposals are manifestly unsuitable at the initial scrutiny, the Secretary of State can refer them back and require fresh proposals, but the nature of those proposals remains a matter for local decision.
I should like to refer briefly to two specific aspects of Clauses 2 and 3. The
1478
first relates to Clause 2(6). Some local education authorities operate a procedure commonly known as banding, whereby pupils transferring to comprehensive schools are assessed by ability and grouped accordingly, and places are allocated so as to ensure that no school has an unfair share of above average or below average pupils. Banding is, as will be evident, a form of selection and it shares some of the defects of the old 11-plus procedure. But in some areas its temporary retention may be a necessary evil until alternative means of ensuring parity between the schools can be devised. Clause 2(6) embodies in the Bill an assurance that the Secretary of State will not be hasty in requiring an end to such arrangements.
The second point relates to voluntary schools. Most of these are provided by the Churches, and the Churches have co-operated willingly in the process of comprehensive reorganisation. Those voluntary schools which have resisted this movement have been mostly nondenominational schools. But the Churches have a most legitimate interest here. I should like to pay tribute to their foresight and the contribution they have made to the development of comprehensive secondary education. Perhaps I might commend to your Lordships the book Built a City by one who, when his seniority allows, will surely join the Benches of your Lordships' House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. In chapter 5 of that book he sets out most clearly the argument, based on his Christian convictions and his experience in the East End of London, for a fully comprehensive system of secondary education. This is no more than a personal argument but it is shared, I think, by many in the Churches.
Knowing, therefore, and welcoming the Churches' constructive attitude on this matter the Government paid particular heed to their representations about the Bill. They asked, first, that in the last, resort it should be the Secretary of State, rather than the local education authority, who should require action from voluntary school governors on reorganisation. Under present law, the only step which a local education authority can take with regard to a voluntary school whose governors refuse to reorganise is to cease to maintain that school. That would in many cases be an undesirable outcome;

1479
and so Clauses 2(2) and 2(3) of the Bill ensure that voluntary schools governors have the opportunity—and indeed can be compelled by the Secretary of State—to submit their own proposals for reorganisation and that if necessary the Secretary of State, as a neutral arbiter, can judge between their proposals and any proposals by the authority to cease to maintain them. Second, the Churches asked that no voluntary aided school should be required to reorganise if they genuinely could not afford to provide their 15 per cent. share of the cost of any building involved. Clause 3(2) so provides.
Noble Lords will note that the proposals under Clauses 2 and 3 are neither drastic nor draconic: they are essentially reasonable and slow moving, allowing the widest discretion. I have spoken at some length on the central provisions of this Bill, and I will now speak more briefly on the remaining provisions.
Clause 4 makes minor amendments in Section 13 of the 1944 Act to remove anomalies relating to the duty to implement certain types of proposal. It is evidently of particular relevance in the context of implementation of proposals called for under earlier provisions of this Bill, but it is of more general application. Clause 5 broadly restores to the Secretary of State certain powers of control over local education authorities' arrangements with non-maintained schools which were given to him under earlier enactments but subsequently slackened or removed. Again, it has particular relevance in the context of this Bill, as some authorities might be tempted to take up places at non-maintained schools so as to preserve a element of selection and circumvent the principles of the earlier provisions of the Bill. The remaining clauses deal with miscellaneous amendments to various aspects of educational law. They are mostly rather technical and relatively uncontroversial and I do not propose to go into detail about them at this stage. I will do so later if any of your Lordships so desire, and we shall no doubt discuss some of them in Committee.
Your Lordships will see that this Bill consists of two parts; the first controversial but vitally important, the second less vital and certainly less likely to give rise
1480
to prolonged debate. Many of the provisions in the second part are intended simply to remove anomalies in the law, and these will no doubt be uncontroversial. The heart of the Bill—the expression which it gives to Government policy on comprehensive secondary education—is still, alas!, a matter of controversy despite the progress which has been made in the past decade. The Government are sorry that it is necessary to legislate in this way, that there are still pockets of reluctance to accept this great educational advance of our time. Yet all educational advances have required, at some stage, encouragement from the centre. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who unfortunately cannot be here today, would, if he were, recall how, in the debates on that great Act of 1944, he himself deplored the reluctance of some authorities to move faster in the matter of reorganisation of all-age schools, and how he spoke of his determination to give a lead in this matter.
The Government believe that the central matter of this Bill represents a natural and desirable evolution from the Act. In 1944 the promise was held out of secondary education for all; in 1976 the promise is of comprehensive education and a truer, fuller equality of opportunity for all. In that spirit, my Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
11.53 a.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, at the outset let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his elegant performance of a task which I personally would find distasteful and which I think he must have found difficult in parts—the explanation of this Bill to your Lordships. He admitted that the material of which it was made was still highly controversial and I do not doubt that your Lordships will find yourselves treating it as such. In this the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has my sympathy as well as my eager anticipation of the contribution he will make which will not, of course, be controversial.
This is a Bill to prevent the allocation of children to suitable schools at any stage of the secondary system. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. himself in an early

1481
passage in his speech said that continuous selection is a desirable feature of the comprehensive system. The difference between us, therefore, is that he believes that this feature can be established uniquely in the comprehensive system. I do not believe that to be true. Let me start at the beginning of this debate by nailing one lie before it is uttered in this Chamber as a misapprehension, since it has been uttered frequently outside it. It is not, and never has been, the view of the Conservative Party that every school that is comprehensive must be bad, any more than it has been our view that every school that is non-comprehensive must be good. That view would be manifestly nonsense. But what we do say is that to insist that every school throughout the State monopoly of education shall be a comprehensive school, regardless of the wishes of the parents and governors and in some instances the local education authorities, is not and never can be the right way to run the system.
We believe that there is no place in the British character for the imposition from the centre, from the palaces of Westminster and Whitehall, of one uniform solution to all the diverse problems of the cities and countryside of England and Wales. We believe that anyone who seeks to establish such a uniformity is exercising a tyranny not entrusted to him either by the electorate or by Parliament—and recent events bear this out.
It is a feature of this Bill that it would appear to have been drawn up by people expecting just such an endorsement as appears to be pending from the courts; by people who believe, honestly no doubt, in total ignorance of what goes on in the minds of ordinary people living in the real world, that the gentlemen in Whitehall really do know best. Such direction from the centre is not only diametrically in opposition to the spirit of the times, to the very tide of public opinion that the Government hope to catch with their approach to devolution; it is also in frank contradiction to the spirit of the 1944 Act of which the noble Lord spoke with such approval.
Let me remind your Lordships that that Act was drawn up when this country was fighting for its own life and the freedom of the civilised world against the totalitarian Axis Powers. We were in a death struggle
1482
with fascism then and we were something
of an expert about dictators and dictator ships. Centralisation is the ally, the precursor of dictatorship, whether of an individual, a Party or a bureaucracy. In that consciousness we, or our predecessors, drew up an Act that gave power to local education authorities to conduct their own affairs, not in bondage to the centre but under its guidance. The idea that a Secretary of State might exercise this sort of centralist compulsion upon local education authorities was so foreign to the all-Party minority Government of the day that it produced a Bill which is not equal to doing the job. That is why we have this Bill before us today, put there not by an all-Party Government with a large majority in the House and supported by the whole country, but by a Government clinging by their fingernails to a majority in the other place and universally seen as having diminishing minority support in the country at large.
The experience of the great national monopolies other than education that we have had since 1944 does not encourage us to think that we were wrong then to entrust power to local authorities or to think that Parliament would be wrong to insist that it should remain there now. If that is not to be accomplished by Parliament the least that this House can do is to insist that the conversion can be conducted in such a manner that the voices of the governing bodies of voluntary
schools can be properly heard and considered and at such a pace that the local authorities can make proper and sensible provision to cater for the needs, not of Labour Party dogma nor indeed of Conservative Party dogma, either, but of the children who are to sit at the desks. That guarantee is not in some respects apparent in the Bill as it now stands. If we have, as we ought always to have, the proper relationship between central and local government at the back of our minds in dealing with this Bill, we shall have the proper relationship between parents and children very much at the front.
I believe, and my Party believes, that children are properly subject to the care and control of their parents in preference to that of the State. Each of us in this Chamber knows in his heart that this is true of his own children and of all those who are not severely deprived as well. If

1483
the Government seriously wish to challenge that statement, then the rest of this debate would be not about education but totalitarianism—but I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that we are on common ground—I can see from the pained expression of the noble Lord that we are. Very well then. That is our premise; we share it.
Let us proceed from it to take note of a number of facts and what follows from them in that context. It is a fact that the State has a virtual monopoly of the education of children. It teaches 90 per cent. of them of compulsory school age. Once children are inside that system they are subject to effective physical control and powerful moral influence by it for most of their waking life until the age of 16 at least. It follows that the schools within that system—the schools which exercise that control and influence—should themselves be subject to the effective influence of the parents of the children. That influence is already too small: this Bill, by overriding the wishes of elected governors and sweeping away the right of parents to exercise choice within the monopoly, has diminished it still further. That is a defect that I hope your Lordships will agree to remedy by one means or another.
If any Member of this House had to send his own child every day to a school where he was badly taught or neglected or bullied, he would expect either to be able to take the child away from that school and send him to another or else to have a forceful effect upon the school where this miscarriage of educational justice was taking place. Why should we consent to put other parents in a less privileged circumstance? Why should they have to condone the abuse of both the happiness and the prospects of their children merely because they cannot afford to buy them into a system where they do have choice? I hope your Lordships will assist us in supplying a remedy for that.
Let us return to our catalogue of facts. It is a fact that both psychologists and practical men are increasingly aware that human institutions, whether they be day schools or factories, suffer a dramatic loss in efficiency when the number of people they comprise exceeds a certain limit.
1484
They lose dramatically in humanity as well. It is not a fact, but it is very probably the case, that where schools are concerned this figure is significantly below 1,000. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said in an earlier debate that he thought the figure was nearer 800. I would agree with him. I would also point out that by a fortunate coincidence this is not far off the average size of existing schools in the secondary sector. With above 1,000 pupils schools become increasingly impersonal; faces become numbers; identities are lost. For two of the 10 years in which I taught, I taught in a school of 1,400 children and have witnessed this phenomenon at first hand. It is multiplied of course when one also has to deal with numbers of oversized classes.
As a teacher of no more than average gifts I found it impossible in those circumstances to give proper academic care to a class of 42, let alone give to them the pastoral care that they deserved. And let me now say that I believe it to be high time that we reminded ourselves that proper pastoral care of children is of much greater importance even than proper academic care. Proper teaching is made up equally of both, but without care, oversight and affection the best of academic work goes often to waste—and so do those who receive it. Well then, we do not want monster schools. But straight through comprehensives must be monster schools or else fail to cater for either the full age range or the full range of needs of the children that attend them. It follows, therefore, that they must be restricted either in the range of age or in the range of educational need.
Now we come to the difficult ground. We are faced, as always, with a conflict between the aim that we seek to achieve and the means available to achieve it. The aim is to provide the greatest possible breadth of opportunity for all to develop their personal abilities to the full. We are on common ground there. The means is the existing stock of buildings, and certainly no more than the existing force of teachers. This is the cloth. We must cut our coat to fit it.
One pattern that we should consider closely—or rather, my Lords, let us not forget one pattern that we should enable local authorities to consider closely,

1485
because we are not mandarins in this House—is that of the sixth form college. Sixth form pupils are at present scattered rather thinly among a great many schools. This means, once more, either that the schools must be inordinately big in order to support a sixth form of viable numbers or that the range of subjects taught in the sixth form will be unsatisfactorily narrow. In either case the ratio of staff to pupils within the sixth form is apt to be very high, which is expensive in resources and manpower. Concentration of sixth form pupils in a separate school makes it possible to employ a more efficient staff-pupil ratio and to reduce the size of the pre-sixth schools by having several of them to support it, and to ensure a very wide spectrum of courses in the sixth itself. That is one of the alternative patterns and I think it would be a popular one.
However, to maintain a sixth form college of even modest size requires in most catchment areas a body of pre-sixth form secondary pupils far larger than the largest comprehensive school any of us would be prepared to contemplate. This is an alternative we have just rejected. The other alternative, which is acceptable on both economic and pastoral grounds, is a school of about 750 pupils in existing buildings, operating as a group—one of a group of feeder schools. But a school of that size cannot hope to cater effectively
for the full range of academic and pastoral needs of all its pupils if they are selected at random. Surely it is manifestly obvious that at least within this feeder group there should be the power to match the children to the school best able to cater for their needs, and it need not be done on social grounds; it need not necessarily be done on academic grounds; it need not be done on grounds hostile to the Socialist party philosophy. But it does need to be done on grounds which fall within the descriptive phrase "ability and aptitude".
One might think that it would be an object of this Bill to promote such an interchange between schools. One might expect this to be the proper concern of the parents, the teachers and the pupils themselves; but it is the specific object of this Bill to forbid this procedure. For if the words "ability and aptitude" mean anything—and I await with great interest the noble Lord's definition of them—they mean, I suppose, the suit-
1486
ability of a particular child to a particular course in a particular school.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if I may just ask for clarification, I am absolutely lost in what the noble Lord is saying about selection for sixth form colleges, which seems to me to be what he was talking about. In so far as there are sixth form colleges, which is something entirely determined by the local authority, the selection is done fully on aptitude and ability. Can anybody suggest anything else? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest anything else. I have lost the noble Lord's argument.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as long as the pupils are in the secondary sector the Bill prohibits their selection on those grounds. But that was not actually the selection to which I was referring. I do not wish to be drawn into detail because your Lordships will discover that I have much to say, but I would add that I envisage as one solution a group of schools, not necessarily next door to each other, and some of their pupils going to further education, some of them to paid employment and some of them to another institution which we may call a sixth form college. How they arrive there was not what I was referring to; what I was referring to was that if you have these schools (some of them relatively small) and if they are to have a random selection from the children rejected from the ESN school because it is full but who are none the less educationally retarded, to the high flyer; from the person who is very good with his hands and cannot hold a pencil but can hold a saw or a theodolite, to the person who is a born artist—if they arrive by random in these small institutions—one cannot hope to have the staff to match their needs, and unless you allow them to go to where the staff is you are condemning them to be frustrated and not to be able to develop to the best of their ability, which is the object of the educational system of this country. Therefore, I think this is a glaring defect in the Bill, and one that we seek to put right.
To return to our theme, it is a fact that the variety of educational needs of children is greater than can be economically provided for, not only within every individual school but also in

1487
every individual local education authority, and it follows that some of them will have to be provided from outside existing LEA resources altogether. And it is a fact that there is a small but vigorous educational system operating independently of the State monopoly but subject to the same oversight and regulated by the same examining and ministerial authorities. Your Lordships might note in passing that it was recently greatly strengthened, to the cost of the maintained sector, by the direct grant schools that were forced out of the maintained sector by the recent change in the regulations. When the Government lost those schools to the taxpayer they also lost the 7,156 boarding places that they took with them, and I should like the noble Lord, when he replies to this debate, to tell us what are his long-term plans—not his temporary expedients but his long-term plans—to make good that loss and the £10 million per annum fees that go with it. In the meantime, I repeat that we have in parallel to the State system an independent centre of at least equally good standards. It follows that a logical way of providing for the educational needs of children who cannot be catered for economically within the monopoly is to pay for them to be provided for outside it.
But, although the noble Lord referred to it only briefly, we are greatly suspicious of the powers taken in Clause 5, because it would appear to us that these are taken with a view to terminating any such arrangement—not only not making any new arrangement but terminating those that exist. I hope that the noble Lord will reassure the House at a later stage in this debate that there is no intention to apply that power also to agreements recently entered into to pay for the completion of the education of children, in direct grant schools going independent, in free places. It is a fact that there is a deep and general disquiet about the efficiency of quite a number of comprehensive schools in the country; that that disquiet is growing, and that it is felt within the teaching profession as well as outside it. It has been heightened both by recent research and by the discovery that all is far from well with the teaching of the three Rs in the primary sector. The public is at last discovering that children are arriving in a large number
1488
of secondary schools not equipped with the tools to learn in them. That is a serious matter, and bears on the Bill, because it increases the responsibility of the secondary sector to see that those children are properly educated as a remedy for what they have lost.
My Lords, is it not absurd for a Government to choose a moment such as this to go bald-headed for one universal solution, one specific system of organisation, and that the one most open to suspicion? If it is not absurd, is it not malicious? Does it not amount to a plan to rush it through? The noble Lord said that it was not being rushed through, but is it not a plan to bring it through before it can be discovered that the scheme in some respects may be undesirable? To use a guillotine in the other place so to restrict discussion of this ill-considered Bill—and I hope your Lordships take note of this—that parts of it have never been examined at all by the House of Commons, but only by a Committee of it, arouses a trace of a suspicion that some such motive is in the minds of the Government.
My Lords, we are not discussing trivia; we are discussing children. We are also discussing, as we shall shortly see, very large sums of money. To commit ourselves irrevocably to a system at the moment when its very effectiveness is in doubt would be lunacy. I am firmly of the opinion that that doubt should be resolved. If Her Majesty's Government cannot resolve it, and I cannot see how they may, then there should be an inquiry or a Commission to do it for them. Your Lordships may well feel that the major provisions of this Bill should not be implemented until its report has been discussed both by your Lordships in this House and in another place. I am sure your Lordships will also share our anxiety that those parts of the Bill which were never adequately reviewed in another place are properly reviewed here, and that, where it is appropriate, an opportunity should be given to our honourable and right honourable friends on both sides at the other end of the corridor to look at them for the first time.
The final fact to which I would refer in this sequence is a painful and a pressing one. It is that we as a nation are terribly

1489
short of money. An allocation was made by Her Majesty's Government when they broached this policy. It was not an allocation of money, though many thought that it was. It was an allocation of the power to borrow money. Local education authorities were invited to share in the authority to borrow money to a total of £25 million. I believe that that sum has been vastly oversubscribed and, of course, the rates of support grant have since been cut. How far will this money go over the whole country? I am puzzled by the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, because I learn that in Kent they have costed the scheme that they would have to put into effect under the Bill, and reckon that it would cost them £40 million, and might cost £50 million. By what figure have we to multiply this to arrive at the staggering national bill which is to be paid by a Government still staggering on the edge of bankruptcy? It is not the Government, presumably, but the ratepayer who has to pay back the loan, and the investment interest upon it.
In his reply, the noble Lord should advert to this, and give us some idea what the expense will be. This Bill appears to be an assault not only on parental freedom, upon pastoral standards in schools and upon the apparent wishes of the electorate; it is also an assault on a staggering scale upon the pockets of the ratepayers. Do they, I wonder, yet sufficiently realise what is afoot? Will the Minister put them right?
My Lords, there are other areas of the Bill outside the main consideration of the comprehensive principle to which I must briefly refer. Clause 7 extends local authority grant payments to courses leading to the higher diplomas of the technical education and the business education councils. If local authority money is to be used to provide this kind of training, either of central Government or of local authorities, I think the payers have a right to be sure that it is well spent. The only guarantee of this is that it fits those who follow these vocational courses for their future employment. The best judges of that are those who provide the employment. It is they who, in this narrow but vital sense, are the customers of the councils, because otherwise jobs will not materialise. We shall wish to satisfy ourselves that they are, in fact,
1490
satisfied customers. If they are not, it would seem reasonable to give them an effective say in the work of the councils themselves by means of increased representation.
Clause 10 is also a major innovation designed to deal with some of the problems which result from the appearance on the scene—following another of your Lordships' enactments—of a new class of person, the married child. The clause deals only with the enforcement of the duty to attend school, but it contains major implications which your Lordships will wish to look at with technical assistance. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will be assisting us to revise this and to deal with other of the more technical aspects of the Bill at Committee stage.
My Lords, I have tried to spare your Lordships much detail. I have restricted myself to generalities. I will resist the temptation to do more than allude to the fact that Clause 1(1) establishes a principle, and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, Clause 1(2) drives a coach and four straight through it. I do not think we should spend much time considering in what ways and in what vehicles we might consider following his lead.
Finally, I must say that this shabby Bill, which seeks to do for education what the pay-bed Bill seeks to do for medicine, should be seen in context. It is not a Bill on its own. It is one of a group of Bills being herded together through the other place on a composite guillotine Motion. It is designed, and avowedly designed, to do away with those voluntary grammar schools, many of them Church foundations, which, through the efforts of parents or governing bodies, or local authorities, or all three, still survive. They have survived in spite of the strenuous and dubious efforts of Socialist Ministers of Education to destroy them. The Labour Party want them gone, and they want them gone for good, just as they want free enterprise, pay beds, aviation, building and shipbuilding, gone for good. Just as they want freedom of choice of employment within five miles of the docks to be gone for good. None of these Bills is earnestly wanted by the electorate; many of them are even resisted by those to whom they most closely apply, and who subscribe to the Party adhered to, mistakenly, by

1491
noble Lords opposite. All of them are wrecking Bills, with the exception of the last Bill, Bills that once long enough enacted will have done irreversible damage to the system to which it was applied.
I see the present Government, like an army in retreat, blowing up all the installations they can as they evacuate. The noble Lord appropriately referred to pockets of reluctance, if you please, but these are the enraged majority of the electorates of local authorities, where their children have been taught for sometimes 150 years, in schools of great excellence and renown. That is the sort of thing this Bill is designed to destroy. It may satisfy some spiteful spirits in Transport House and on the Left of the Party opposite, but it is a very good way of earning the lasting contempt and bitterness of those who are deprived of the services they have destroyed, and the contempt and bitterness also of those who join them on what was billed as a march to the promised land and which is turning into a retreat to the wilderness. Those are the electorate to whom the Government is answerable. It is our function to limit the damage that they are able to do in this massive, predictable, deserved and eagerly awaited retreat to the absolute minimum.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his place—and I am taking no sides whatever in this issue in which I am deeply interested—would he kindly explain why, in the 24 minutes during which he was speaking, he never mentioned the 11-plus examination?
Lord ELTON: My Lords with pleasure; because, as I said at the outset, we are on common ground; we do not think selection should take place at a specific point in time; we do not necessarily think a child need even change schools at the age of 11. We are far more flexible, as I said at the outset, in our approach to this problem than people in the country give us credit for. We are not the Party of the universal 11-plus, or the Party of the universal non-comprehensive school. We want good schools, and those are best judged by being the schools that the parents of the children themselves want.
12.20 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I cannot raise the indignation which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has produced about this Bill, neither, I must confess, can I raise very much enthusiasm. It seems to me that, however much one is in favour of the comprehensive principle—and my Party is—this Bill and the passions it is arousing, is a waste of time, a waste of Parliament's time in a Session when we are overburdened with far too much legislation anyway. It is a waste of talent, time, resources, people and work. There are many other better things that we could be doing today. and that the educational world should be doing, than paying attention to this Bill.
It is 32 years since the last Education Act made an organic change in British educational practice, and during those 32 years there has been a massive revolution in the whole of British education. Nothing is the same as it was then, for better or for worse. And all this has happened by the use of consensus and evolution, maybe with the dangling of a carrot here and maybe a prod from the stick there, but on the whole it has happened by consensus. Now we have this rather clumsy, coercive little Bill to raise passions and to divert people in an economic and educational crisis from their worthwhile tasks.
I do not for one moment defend the local authorities who still refuse to embark on comprehensive reorganisation. I think that they are wrong-headed and I think that they are thick-headed, but I believe that, slow as they have been to produce reorganisation, they would have come round in the end; that we would do better, rather than produce a coercive Bill, to find another way of representing the electorate's wishes in the field of educational organisation. I will return to that, if I may, in a moment, because I think it is a point that ought to be examined.
Liberals are united in defence of the comprehensive system. It has its drawbacks and we know it, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has pointed out some of the problems which arise in trying to apply it completely logically over the whole field. But the drawbacks it has are as nothing to the drawbacks of selection, and although the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said that he and his Party are

1493
flexible—and I am quite prepared to believe it—it is still true that they have not pointed out in what way they would exercise this lack of comprehensiveness, this form of selection, in such a way that it does not have a lot of the evils of the 11-plus.
Selection inevitably compartmentalises children at an early age into categories from which it is very difficilt for them to escape. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, asked whether it was not true that children can get reallocation from comprehensive to grammar schools. In fact, that is not possible, because you cannot have comprehensive and grammar schools in the same system. It is just an abuse of the English language.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in fact they have co-existed in London for the last 20 years, and the noble Lord ought to know it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, they have not co-existed in London for the last 20 years, because you cannot properly call schools "comprehensive" if they do not comprehend the children who have gone to the grammar schools.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord is really talking about something of which he does not seem to know the elements. In my late constituency of St. Marylebone the Quintin Kynaston School became comprehensive a long time ago, the Marylebone Grammar School was a grammar school, and the Rutherford School was comprehensive. They co-existed for years, and the noble Lord ought to know it before speaking about it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about, but he does not appear to have any command of the English language. A comprehensive school is a school which comprehends all the children in its catchment area. If it does not, you may call it comprehensive until you are blue in the face, but it is not; it is a secondary modern.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, may I just correct
1494
one statement which the noble Lord has just made. I was not merely referring to movement from comprehensive to grammar. I was referring to both ways; I know it has happened most successfully.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I was just about to go on to the question of movement. I accept the noble Baroness's correction about two ways. Where you have secondary modern schools, whether or not they are called comprehensive, and grammar schools co-existing, you can have movement after selection from one to the other. But it is much less likely to happen between schools than it is within schools, and it is much less likely to happen in a system which is already divided into these different categories than one which by its philosophy rejects these categories. There-fore, there is still far too much final selection and far too many cases where a child cannot change when he or she should change either way.
This form of selection instils competition between children, encouraged by parents, of a kind which is probably undesirable at any age and is certainly shocking at the age of 11 or 12. Let us not forget the pressures that are on children and the tragedies that there were. Although we are not the same as Germany and our system was not the same, let us not forget the rash of teenage and school-children suicides in Germany at this moment, largely caused, people think, by the pressure of a selection system. These are the evils of a selection system, which the comprehensive system does away with, more or less. Selection also divides schools into two kinds which, whatever labels people give to them, are seen as good and academic on the one side or bad and practical on the other. Among other things, this has contributed towards the low prestige of engineers and technicians in our society, and this is probably an important factor in our national decline. It makes it difficult for children to combine different skills, such as, say, mechanical engineering and German which would make extremely good and fruitful combinations and which children may have real aptitudes for. On all grounds, therefore, selection at this kind of age, or any age round it, is both repugnant and catastrophic.
There is another principle which is involved in this Bill, another equally

1495
liberal principle, and that is the principle of local option and devolution. I will not conceal from your Lordships that there are many Liberals who feel that in this particular field devolution and local option should have precedence, that we should give to local education authorities the power to decide what system they want. The fact that I and my Party marginally disagree with this, and are, therefore, reluctantly forced to support the Government in this not very attractive Bill, comes from two considerations which I feel I must very briefly put before your Lordships.
The first is that I think there is a general principle about devolution and human rights. Whereas we should give as much as possible control over people's lives into their own hands, when it comes to questions of human rights they are best left to the bodies at the greatest distance from local prejudice and pressures. That is why, for example, in a broader field, the institution of the European Court of Human Rights, and our accession to it and our acceptance of it, is such a massive and good step forward in the whole field of human rights. That is why we made such a bad mistake during the 'twenties, 'thirties, 'forties and 'fifties in leaving the whole field of human rights to the devolved Stormont Parliament, instead of making certain they that were enforced at Westminster.
Although one should not extend what is the field of human rights unnecessarily, the harm which can be done by selection is, I believe, great enough to make one wonder whether this is not a field where one should put the power of decision firmly in the hands of the State. Secondly, I very much doubt whether in any of these local authorities there would be a majority for the present selective system if one were actually to take a vote of the parents of children at school and the parents of children about to go to school. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would say, that is not a fact, but I think that there is strong evidence to show that it may nevertheless be true.
Some time ago I commissioned a study on this matter which showed that if one took this particular part of the electorate there was an overwhelming majority of parents in favour of the comprehensive
1496
system. Surely it is those people to whom we should be listening. It is those people whose children are having to go into the system to whom we should be listening, and I do not believe that the electorates of the particular local authorities with which we are dealing and which the Bill is designed to deal with are in fact representative in this matter. It is true, of course, that they can be turned out by the electors who do not want them, but local government elections are fought on a great number of issues, some of them national, and one particular issue very seldom sways the balance. Perhaps, therefore, we need to think all over again how we control our educational system, both at the national and local level, and if the report of the Taylor Committee is anything like it is reported to be, maybe it is a very useful step to having a better form of democracy in education.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the changes, and whatever changes we may want to see in the educational system of this country, this really is a silly Bill to bring in at a time when there is so much to do. We have the present cuts in education expenditure to deal with. Why, for example, are local authorities not getting a strong lead from the Government on how to cope with them? Why are we not getting the kind of national conference to discuss how to deal with the cuts which were so usefully and intelligently suggested by the professional association of teachers? Why do we not move the social welfare elements of the Bill off education and on to social welfare so that we can actually examine the expenditures on education? Why do we not change the regulations which deal with school meals and matters like that so that sensible savings and changes can be made in fields of that kind? There are so many things that we should be doing; for example, concentrating on cutting down the vandalism bill. Why, above all, do we not realise that there is a crisis in education and that it is not really very much to do with ideologies, however much some of us may pretend that is is?
I was sitting across the table last week from the top civil servants of OECD dealing with education and manpower; very able people with wide experience of the educational systems of the developed world (no trendy "lefties") and they

1497
said, in effect, "There is the problem of the secondary school. It is not a problem, whatever people say, of selection. It is not a problem of the comprehensive school. It is a problem of the secondary school all over the developed world". That is what we should be paying much more attention to than we are and I get the feeling that we are not paying very much attention to it at all.
Nevertheless, the Government have produced this Bill and I suppose that they must have it, although in my view they should not be allowed to have it until it has been considerably amended. Clause 5 must go. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There is no excuse whatever for taking away the right of local education authorities to pay for education in any system they want out of the money that they have raised in individual cases, and if they should abuse that system the remedy is quite simple and the Secretary of State has pointed it out: the ratepayers can appeal to the district auditor to disallow it, as he probably would if the system was abused. In any event, this right must not be taken away and I hope that this House will not let the Bill through in any shape or form so long as it has that clause in it.
Next, I think that the Secretary of State must be given more discretion on exemptions in the future. I should like to examine some of this gap in Clause 1(2) with Lord Elton and have a look at it. I am certain that we must allow flexibility for the future so that if we discover fields other than singing, dancing and acting in which we wish to have some sort of discrimination, the Secretary of State or an appropriate authority will have the power, without having to come back to this House for a whole new Education Bill, to make exemptions. I think that we should have some method of local inquiries into reorganisation schemes within the comprehensive principle, and it seems to me that there are a great many Amendments which your Lordships would be right to put forward to this House.
I applaud the ideals behind the Bill and I stand four-square behind the comprehensive system. I reject the hypocrisy which would have it that selection some-how meant choice. The only choice that it involved was that parents of kids who passed the 11-plus could not choose to
1498
take up their places. I deplore the Bill as an unnecessary time and money wasting measure with some very highly desirable features. It has passed its 11-plus in another place and has got into this academy. I hope that it will leave this academy a great deal more civilised than it entered it.
12.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of BLACKBURN: My Lords, I appreciate the sympathy expressed on trying not to be controversial when speaking in connection with this Bill. I should not be controversial in the slightest if I said that from the Church's point of view we are very grateful for the Amendments already accepted by the Government to the Bill as originally conceived, and not least of course for the financial provision, to which reference has been made, where there are Church secondary schools and it seems to the local diocese impossible to find the money to reorganise at the time. We are grateful for the right of governing bodies of voluntary schools to submit proposals affecting their schools direct to the Secretary of State. We are partners in a dual system here and we value every line of communication, and are appreciative of that Amendment. We are also grateful for the undertaking that ability in music may be interpreted as including choral ability, so that it will still be open to local educational authorities to assist the education of choristers in cathedral or other schools which are not necessarily comprehensively organised.
The principles behind the Bill have been discussed in Church, educational and political circles—I can only speak for the Church circles—with varying degrees of expertise. The merits of the provision of an education for people of all abilities alike and the desire to recognise the wishes of parents and of local authorities clearly have to be balanced. They are understood, and they have often been discussed. The weaknesses of the 11-plus system have already been referred to today. In the Board of Education of the Church of England these issues have been debated very many times, and many times recently. Clear divisions of opinion have shown themselves, and those clear divisions are not all born of prejudice. It is equally true that the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting in Church House

1499
recently, debated what was then the issue of the direct grant schools and noted with concern the educational, social, and moral effects of the proposed abolition of the direct grant system. But, again, there were divided opinions and views which were held very strongly on both sides.
As I see it, a comprehensive school, Church or otherwise, can be just as moral and just as religious as its predecessor under the selective system, and we appreciate that there is no intention to affect or alter the religious persuasion and the religious foundation of the voluntary Church schools. Many of our Church secondary schools have gone, and many more will go, comprehensive, whether or not the Bill is passed. Indeed, I think it fair to say that there are many members of our Board of Education who would approve the comprehensive idea in principle, but regret any element of compulsion. They might suspect that Gamaliel would have said, "Let it grow on its own merits if it is the right way forward". However, if it is the right way forward, I see one value in the old secondary modern scheme that must somehow be preserved. I refer to the opportunity for leadership and responsibility to be exercised by the less academically able.
In a large—and by that I mean very large—school where the majority will leave at 16 and a minority will be staying on for the remaining two years, there is a danger that it will be from that minority, which will consist of the more academically able, that the prefects, the captains of sport, the leaders of the debating societies and others will be found. In a school where all leave at the same age, that leadership is open to all, irrespective of their academic ability. Of course, there are ways of overcoming this danger, but it is something that could militate against the very principle upon which the Bill is founded, for our society needs to give opportunities to all its growing members to learn the art of leadership and to be aware of responsibility. In our secondary schools they get that chance.
From the Church's point of view, it is the local diocese which, in the Church of England, makes decisions about the educational system and, shifting from
1500
local lines of communication to central Government may make slightly more difficult the organisation under which we happen to work. I see the role of the Church of England Board of Education as being to co-operate with the State and the local education authorities within a dual system. We try to do this at every level from infant school to colleges of education with courses leading to university degrees. In our schools, there are something like 1 million children, leaving aside schools of the Roman Catholic and other Church persuasions. We are partners in this enterprise. We have valued that partnership for over a hundred years. We are only too willing to criticise, comment and make suggestions, but it is not our intention at this moment to start fighting with our partner.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to be the one to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech. I should also like to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said when he opened the debate. He said that he would like to pay tribute to the co-operation of the Churches with the Department of Education and Science, and as one who had the task for three years when a Minister of dealing with the Church of England and Roman Catholic authorities, I, too, should like to pay tribute to their co-operation, particularly in the field of secondary education and comprehensive schools. I come from the opposite side of the Pennines to the right reverend Prelate, but he has made the kind of fair and forthright speech which we associate with both sides of the Pennines and I hope that we shall hear him on many occasions in the future.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson remarked in opening on the fact that this was not the first Bill of this kind. As he remembered, there was a Bill going through another place in May 1970, and I remember that I said my last words as a Member of the House of Commons in the Standing Committee on that Bill. I thought that I was uttering my last words in Parliament because the General Election had been called. The words in question, which had something to do with Clause 3 of the Bill were, "And the Secretary of

1501
State must wait five years". I never finished that sentence and I have forgotten what the Secretary of State had to wait for but, at any rate, he has had to wait six years to introduce the present Bill and I have had to wait six years to speak and to finish what I was probably going to say on that occasion.
I have always believed in the comprehensive system. It is said, and there is some truth in this today, that it has become a political issue. As far as I am concerned, however, I was an advocate of the comprehensive system of education many years ago, and my advocacy had nothing whatever to do with my politics. It was due to the fact that, during the war years, I was a teacher in a secondary modern school, and saw the unfairness of the 11 plus system and the separation of children between secondary modern and grammar schools. At the beginning of the war, I was elected a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party and one of the things that I determined to do was to get the National Executive to press forward with the whole idea of comprehensive education. I am proud of the pat t that I played in getting my Party to support that idea.
For various reasons I have to be brief today, so I shall just deal with a few points though I should like to mention many more. First, I should like to mention the Conservative attitude towards comprehensive education over the years. In the 1950s and 1960s there was some—though it was not entire—consensus of policy. I always thought during that period, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, was the Minister, and, in some degree, when the Minister was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that they accepted some forms of comprehensive education, even if they were not prepared to go as fast as the Labour Party would go. I believed that they accepted the trend towards comprehensive schools.
At national level in those years, the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Party seemed one of degree and timing. At local level—with a few exceptions—many Conservative and independent local authorties were as keen on getting their schemes of comprehensive education through as were Labour local authorities. From 1967 to 1970 I was
1502
in charge of the comprehensive scheme part of the Department of Education and I know that pressure was coming from local authorities for us to approve the schemes of comprehensive education and that that pressure was coming not only from Labour authorities but also from Conservative and independent authorities. Indeed, some of the best and most successful comprehensive schools in the country are down in the West Country in Devon and Cornwall.
But in late years there seemed to be a change in Conservative policy at national level, and I think that this change occurred when Mrs. Thatcher took over in Opposition responsibility for education, and this was accentuated when she became Secretary of State for Education. Now it seems not so much one of timing and degree, but opposition to the idea of a comprehensive system, or the strange idea, which has already been dealt with, of comprehensive and grammar schools existing side by side.
In all the arguments about details I think we are getting away from the basic issues. Before there were any comprehensive schools we had the 11-plus system with all that that meant, and there is more nonsense talked about freedom of choice for parents than anything else. Under the separate system of grammar schools and secondary moderns there never was the choice for parents, and there never has been. For most of the children of our country the alternative to a comprehensive school was not a grammer school; the alternative was a secondary modern school. I should like to ask this question. If a local authority has places for 240 grammar school pupils and the parents of 800 children have applied for these places, what is to happen to the spare 560? Where is the choice for parents of the 560 who would not in this instance be admitted to the grammar school? There is no choice whatsoever, and this freedom of choice is just a nonsense.
Before there were comprehensive schools there was room in the grammar schools of this country for 20 per cent. of the secondary intake. Eighty per cent. went to secondary moderns and 20 per cent. to the grammar schools, so that four-fifths of the children never got any choice at all. But it was even worse than that, because pre-comprehensive, about

1503
20 or 30 years ago, the percentage of grammar school places in different local authority areas varied from 8 per cent. in some places to over 60 per cent. in parts of North Wales. So that the test, even if one could devise a fair test at 11, of whether or not a child got to the grammar school depended far more on where that child happened to live than on the ability that child had.
This Bill is to compel those local authorities which have no intention of going comprehensive to do so, and it has been argued that we should not have compulsion and that we should leave local authorities to please themselves. Well, I would agree that there are many things that are done by the Department of Education and Science which ought to be left to local authorities. I found all kinds of details coming to me which ought to have been resolved at local level. But I think there are some things which must be determined for the country as a whole. We do not leave local authorities to determine the school-leaving age, and I regard the whole of the organisation of secondary education as important as the school-leaving age.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has today said that we should have uniformity if we have the comprehensive scheme. This is not so. There are a variety of different ways in which local authorities can introduce comprehensive education. There are the 11 to 18 schools. I have never been keen on these, quite honestly. I think that from 11 to 18 is too big an age range. There is the middle school system with schools from 9 to 13 and 13-plus. There are sixth form colleges, junior comprehensives from 11 to 16, and then a sixth form college. A great many of our young people today leave school at 16 to go on to the college of further education to take their A levels there. I think that a great many of them do this because at 16 they do not want to be regarded as pupils at school; they want to be regarded as students at college.
One of the schemes which came to me was from Exeter. It was a very interesting one in which the Exeter local authority decided to have comprehensive schools from 11 to 16 and anybody who stayed on at school beyond the age of 16 received his education in the college of further education, with a merging together of
1504
what would have been a sixth form college and the college of further education. I am told that this scheme is progressing very well and that some other local authorities have also followed suit.
My Lords, I want to mention only two other matters. I think that comprehensive schools have been getting a very bad Press lately because anything concerning a comprehensive school, particularly with regard to behaviour, has been given headlines. But of course if the boys from Gordonstoun go out drinking, that is just some youthful expedition. We have heard a lot about bullying; it is always said that there is bullying in comprehensive schools. Quite a number of noble Lords opposite went to famous schools and I hope that they will not think me ungracious
if I say that some of them went to school a very long time ago. Can they honestly say that they did not see any bullying at their very expensive public schools? Of course they saw bullying.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to one other point. Mrs. Thatcher is fond of telling us that she is the product of a grammar school—and anything which produced Mrs. Thatcher must be preserved. I am the product of a grammar school, too, and a great many of my noble friends on this side of the House are products of grammar schools. But we were the lucky few, the few who got through, and I know that in my small mining town (and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I live among ordinary people—miners and railwaymen) there were a great many boys and girls of my age who ought to have gone to the grammar school and receive a grammar school education, but there was not the opportunity for them to do so.
What I want to do is preserve what is good in the grammar school and make it available for everybody. I want there to be opportunity for all. The 1944 Education Act refers to secondary education being provided according to age, ability and aptitude. Well, I believe that a comprehensive system of education is the only one which gives meaning to this and which will give opportunities for all children, according to their age, ability and aptitude.
12.58 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, it is a pleasure to join with the noble Baroness

1505
in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. The Churches have made such a tremendous contribution over the years in the field of education that we are really very grateful that one right reverend Bishop should be here and should make such a balanced speech. I hope that we shall hear him many times in the future and that he will perhaps convey to his Board of Education that this House wants to hear what the Church has to say about education. It is also a very great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I always enjoyed her speeches in another place. She said something kind about me and I can return it many times. I have never heard her make a speech on education from which I did not feel that I had learnt something, and her sympathy with children and teachers was very valuable.
This is called an Education Bill, but it has more to do with Party politics than with education. That we have already discovered, and that turns it into an important and controversial measure which I find has close links with two recent debates in your Lordships' House, one on the family and the other on the universities. I missed the Archbishop of Canterbury's debate, but reading the report I felt that the House must have been convinced that the family remains the most important agency for holding society together. Your Lordships will have noticed that at exactly the same time and in another place education Ministers were saying that social cohesion is the principal benefit to be expected from this Bill. I propose to devote a few remarks to this high claim for comprehensive schools and to ask your Lordships to examine it carefully and, I hope, objectively.
I think that we would all agree that our society will only recover its balance and vigour if we have much more in common than we have now. Rather suddenly, we have become aware of how many divisions there are in British society and that these divisions are not the same as those to which we were used. Today, they are not so much financial; that is, differences in income after tax, as cultural and social. There are many groups in society today that do not seem able to talk to each other. The question is very relevant: can the system of public education be improved to help us to treat each other as friends and equals in spite of the
1506
enormous natural differences between one person and another, differences which it is the express purpose of education to discover and develop?
The Labour Party are perfectly right to pose that question. It is one of the great issues of our time, to which, in my opinion, the answer of the most reverend Primate was right and to which the answer of this Bill is wrong; because without a background of mutual respect and understanding, traditional wisdom and a willingness for change—and where can these things be learned if not in the family—the schools can do very little for social cohesion. I hope to show your Lordships that the measure that we are discussing, far from helping will make matters worse.
First, let me glance at the other side of this Bill; that is, at the likely effect on educational standards. That is where the debate on the universities comes in. Concern was expressed on that occasion about the standards in the schools. We were told that students are entering universities handicapped by being less well prepared than formerly and the Vice-Chancellors—or it may have been the UGC, I have forgotton which—surprised us by suggesting that university courses ought to be lengthened from three years to four years to make good the deficiencies in the schools. This Bill
will do further damage to higher educational standards. In another place, Ministers said very little about the immediate effect of compelling all grammar schools to become mini-comprehensives. They justified the Bill—and I am thinking in particular of a very good passage from a speech of Mr. Gerry Fowler, the Minister of State—on the grounds that the abolition of selection would reduce class differences and ensure greater social cohesion than we have now—two objectives with which I heartily agree.
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the two earlier debates form an impressive introduction to this Bill. In them was described the social and educational scene against which the merits of the Bill must he judged. To abolish selection when there is no money to extend the grammar schools to cope with a full range of ability will result in fewer subjects being offered and fewer subjects being well taught in many sixth forms.

1507
It will accelerate the deterioration in the teaching of boys and girls on the way to the sixth form. This is a most important point.
I must emphasise that it is before children enter the sixth form that the damage is done in comprehensives or secondary moderns too small or too poorly staffed to contain within them fully organised grammar school streams. Not to select until entry into the sixth form means that many boys and girls will either never get there or, more likely, if they do, the standards of the sixth form will have had to be lowered to cope with the loss that they suffered through not having had an adequate preparation. If this Bill is passed, we shall have to reconcile ourselves to the extinction of the A-stream in almost all grammar schools which have been compelled to become mini-comprehensives. Your Lordships might think what that will mean in terms of university education.
I now return to the question of social cohesion. It would be wrong for my Party to take the position that in 1976 nothing mattered in secondary education, nothing need be considered, except the provision of an education suitable to the abilities of each child. Things have changed since the 1944 Act. Today, my Party should look afresh at the organisation and content of education to see whether they help or hinder the growth of responsible citizenship. On the other hand, if the Labour Party took the opposite position, that only social engineering mattered, for which a decline in sixth form standards was a small price to pay, one would have to ask them how Britain is to maintain her position in a competitive world unless clever children from every kind of home get an education that fits them to be leaders in the fight against unemployment and against economic stagnation and leaders, too, in the fight for an improvement in the quality of life for everybody.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, that in theory it should be possible to combine the social and educational objectives in one school—and supposing that this or any other Government could offer a secondary education in comprehensive schools to all
1508
children which both did justice to their immense range of talents and taught them to be responsible and to respect authority under the law, no one would be against comprehensives.
But the facts of life rule out this possibility. The resources do not exist to establish all secondary schools as comprehensives on a scale that would allow a grammar school and all the other forms of teaching average and below-average children to be contained in one building or adjacent buildings. Even were resources available, the problem, to which there are only a few notable exceptions, would remain of the administrative troubles that cripple the large schools, defeat the teachers and are the despair of parents who want the atmosphere at school to work for and not against their child doing his or her best. Here things have changed in the last ten years; and the schools are not exceptional. Throughout the Western democracies today—it was quite different at the time when I was Minister of Education—we are all learning that very large institutions, although on paper they may show great economies and other remarkable advantages, militate against good human relations, and put too much power in too few hands.
Therefore we find sensible planners in many countries besides our own operating on a more modest scale and advocating that institutions of all kinds should not be too large. The Department of Education and Science, and such bodies as ILEA, have changed their view on the minimum size of the comprehensive school that can do justice to the full range of ability. I can vouch for this conversion because when I was Minister things were the other way round. After years of calling for comprehensives large enough to contain within them a fully-fledged grammar school, they now say that a much smaller comprehensive will do the job just as well. No one believes they reversed their views so abruptly on purely educational grounds. The administrative and disciplinary difficulties of running very large schools, and lack of money to extend existing schools, must have compelled them to discover that small comprehensives are just as good. It is a characteristic of swollen bureaucracies that they will tell any tale to justify their mistakes.

1509
If we could have an impartial review of what is going on in secondary schools, we should discover that the troubles which are now coming to light have very little to do with the abolition of selection. There I am in agreement with noble Lords who have spoken opposite. These troubles lie much deeper in the deception practised on children about the nature of man and of the world in which the school-leaver is going to live. When young people go out into the world they go out into a competitive world. Some of them get on, some lag behind; some try to become Members of Parliament only a few succeed. Most Members of Parliament try to become Cabinet Ministers. What a mercy that only a few succeed! Inequality of performance is a fact of life and it is sheer deception to teach children otherwise. Whether the doctrine that children should be sheltered from the knowledge of what success and failure mean accounts for the lowering of educational standards or whether the undeniable fall in standards accounts for the doctrine, I leave your Lordships to decide. We delude ourselves if we think we can improve what is now happening in the schools just by changing the organisation of secondary education. It is quite the contrary. This particular Bill will make the present serious situation worse both educationally and socially.
It is not difficult to show that the effect of the Bill must be socially divisive. In the first place, some parents—perhaps more than we now expect—will opt out of the maintained system and send their children to fee-paying schools. The gap between the maintained schools and independent schools will widen. That is a certain result of this Bill as will be seen from the odious Clause 5 which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, quite rightly wishes to see removed from the Bill. It will be socially divisive, and is bound to lead to envy of the independent schools and a demand for their abolition. It is also unfortunately, though understandably, true that some valuable graduate teachers who have grown accustomed to the atmosphere of a grammar school cannot face the conditions in the mini-comprehensives, and are leaving to teach in independent schools. Some are leaving teaching altogether, and what, my Lords, must be the result? The standards of education in the maintained
1510
schools must go down Secondly, if the comprehensives are to be neighbourhood schools, which I think is what the Labour Party really want, parents who can afford to move to middle-class districts will do so. Selection will continue—this is where the theorists on the other side ought to look more carefully at what is going to happen—not by brains but by where you can afford to live. The horrifying example of the neighbourhood schools in the United States of America is well known to your Lordships. If we have the same here, it will intensify social unrest perhaps with special force in the field of race relations.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, pointed out, Clause 2(6) appears to mean that the comprehensives are not all to be neighbourhood schools. Instead, they may be allocated a balanced intake by bands of ability. It will very rarely occur that the children in any given area reflect the prescribed proportions of ability. Children will be drafted, whether or not their parents like it, to go to the school nominated by the local authority acting within the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of State. Do the Labour Party really think that intake by bands of ability will promote social cohesion? Children will have to be labelled before they get into the bus: first-class, second-class, and third class. Does the Party opposite imagine parents will take that lying down? They will be bitterly hostile.
A further point: so far as we can see ahead, the new comprehensives—or many of them—will have to remain small. Some children will have to walk or be transported during the school day to attend sixth forms in other schools, and vice versa. This is going to be the only way to prevent a catastrophic drop in the number of subjects offered for A-level. In my opinion it will also be necessary to move children about for remedial teaching.
Lord DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves the point about bands, may I make this point. The clause to which I referred says that the Secretary of State will not abolish banding at an unreasonable speed. There is no intention of developing the system of labelling people, putting them in buses and sending them off.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, one of two things must happen. Either you have neighbourhood comprehensive schools, in which case you will have class differences between the schools according to the districts where they are situated, or you try to get over that by having bands of ability, in which case you will have a form of "bus-ing" which I venture to think will be socially divisive. I cannot believe that the Labour Party really think that parents will not see that all this movement from school to school upsets children and staff, wastes time and provides opportunities for neglecting work. Will this promote social harmony? This Bill is an ugly little example of how Socialists grab the power out of the hands of the citizen and the local authorities and pile it up in the central bureaucracy. But I suspect that the day of reckoning is not far distant. Governments which carry centralisation so far as this—interfering with the dearest wishes of many families—will find human nature is not so easily outraged. In the words of Edmund Burke:
"The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity; and therefore no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or to the quality of his affairs".
This Bill treats secondary education as simple. How can it be simple when every child is unique? Instead of putting all our money on one type of secondary school, we should be experimenting—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, said practically the same—with all-through comprehensives, middle schools, grammar schools, sixth form colleges, specialist schools, direct grant schools, independent schools; the whole lot. As it is, the Bill will deprive a significant number of parents of the opportunity to do what they know is the best for their children. It will deprive many ex-grammar schools of their A-stream, with all that will mean to the standards of university scholars. It will deprive local authorities of the right to take places for children in independent schools which they have reason to believe can give the children concerned the most suitable education. All this is to be done in the name of social cohesion. The claim is fraudulent, and the results will be as socially divisive as they are educationally damaging.
1.21 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, on the previous occasions on which I have spoken to your Lordships' House I have tried to be brief. I hope your Lordships will bear with me today if I speak at rather greater length. I do so for two reasons. First, I do so because this Bill raises issues which are fundamental; but secondly—and I think more importantly—it gives us the opportunity to look at many major problems relating to the education service, to the solution of which this Bill unfortunately makes no contribution at all. Indeed, it aggravates at least one of the major difficulties affecting the education service at the present time. I refer to the tendency to increased political polarisation relating to the organisation of our schools.
My Lords, I must tell you—and I use the words advisedly because I do not advise you: I tell you—that the school system of this country cannot be reorganised every time there is a change of Party political control at either local or national level. It is not a practical proposition. Nothing but disaster will come to the children if we make the organisation of our schools the yo-yo of Party politicians. We must find an answer to that problem, and I hope I may be able to make some suggestions later which may be worthy of consideration by your Lordships.
I am not opposed to the principle of comprehensive education. I believe that consensus opinion in this country accepts the principle of comprehensive education, and in the system of educational isonomy which we practise in this country consensus opinion is inevitably the basis on which educational policy is bound to be formed. But this Bill makes a major constitutional change. In Clause 1 it completely alters the relationship between central Government and local government. It may be that there is need to re-examine the respective powers of central Government and local government relating to education, but surely that is something to be determined under the Layfield Report and not by a Bill of this kind. That is in fact the main theme of the Layfield Report—the relationship between central Government and local government. But this Bill prejudges what may

1513
happen under the Layfield Report. I share the view of some speakers who have said that the Bill is unnecessary. I believe that. I believe that, consensus opinion being in favour of the principle of comprehensive education, this would come within a period of time as natural evolution. Indeed, it is happening now.
I think that Clause 5—I find it difficult to find the right words—creates great administrative difficulty and is economic nonsense. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that at the present time local education authorities support over 30,000 children in independent schools, and Government Departments support a further 7,000. Of that group, it is estimated that approximately 12,000 are there because they require boarding education. I must assume that Clause 5 will be operated in the spirit of Clause 1. If that is so, one is to assume that the Secretary of State will not be prepared to approve of a local authority or Government Department sending a child to a school which continues the principle of selection. That, I think, can be said of almost every independent school. It is therefore necessary to find 12,000 boarding places in comprehensive schools. I hesitate to estimate the capital cost of making that provision, or indeed of the subsequent revenue cost, but I cannot imagine that there is any proposal relating to capital expenditure for local education authorities which would enable that to be done until after a very considerable period of time.
Let me turn away from the Bill. This is an opportunity I have dearly sought for the last six or seven years, to bring to the attention of the country generally the major problems which face the education service and about which nothing seems to be done. I go back to the 1944 Act. It is a great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that it has proved so flexible as to enable it to contain the very many changes which have taken place in these last 30 years—a quite remarkable piece of legislation.
What has happened? I start with the problem of resources, because that is the background against which other things inevitably have to be judged. When I took my present post 31 years ago, this country spent £155 million on the total provision for the education services to the
1514
country. That was in 1945. It represented 1·7 per cent. of the gross national product at that time. This year we shall spend some £6,000 million, representing very close to 7 per cent. of the gross national product. I think in the current year it would be safe to say that no European country spends in that way as high a proportion of gross national product as we do. It seems to me obvious that we are very close to, if not beyond, the limit of resources which can be made available for education. Therefore, we necessarily have to increase the cost-effectiveness within the education service if the needs of the nation are to be met.
Let us look, therefore, at what has happened over these 30 years, and let me start with the schools. I accept that consensus opinion has moved increasingly towards the acceptance of the comprehensive principle, but it is also true that consensus opinion increasingly totally rejects large schools. If we take these two things together, it leads to a perfectly simple conclusion—and I would go beyond the suggested limit of 800: I would go as far as 1,000—that you cannot maintain an effective sixth form in every comprehensive school of 1,000. It would be neither educationally nor economically viable. Therefore, necessarily, you have to move to a new concept, in my judgment, recognising secondary education from 11 to 16, and what I call tertiary education from 16 to 19. That is a problem to which I shall return in a moment. It is also true that, organised in that way, there is a very substantial economic advantage and the educational opportunity is very much wider; but I would not want to stop at merely providing wider academic opportunity. I will come back to that later, but the opportunity must be wider than merely academic.
The other thing that has happened is the explosion in further and higher education. I think "explosion" is the only word to use. It has been so very great, particularly in the expansion of higher education on the academic side. I sometimes wonder whether we are making the same assumptions today as we made 35 years ago; assumptions which may have been justified then, but which are no longer justified. Thirty-five years ago, when we were admitting perhaps 3 per cent. of the age group to our universities, we had—I think from memory—nine

1515
universities. It was manifestly reasonable to assume that they were national institutions and had to recruit nationally, with a high proportion of residential provision. We now have 44 universities, 30 polytechnics and over 100 colleges of education, and it seems to me that we are continuing to make the same assumptions relating to all these institutions of higher education. The proportion of the relevant age groups that attended grammar schools 35 years ago, is the same proportion as now take first degree work in higher educational institutions.
Thirty-five years ago, I was chief education officer for Sheffield, and we had nine grammar schools. I am bound to tell your Lordships that, if I had suggested to my committee that we should recruit from Devon, Cornwall, Durham and Cumberland, they would probably have dismissed me for sheer irresponsibility. They recognised that we could not afford it. Last year I went to Sheffield to address 1,600 students from colleges of education. One hundred were from Sheffield and 1,500 were from all over the country in residence, while at the same time 1,500 Sheffield students were being financed to go all over the country to other colleges of education, to take precisely the same courses as were available within the City. The impact on capital costs is considerable. The impact on revenue costs is £350 per student in terms of the present value of mandatory awards.
We made a second assumption 35 years ago that it was reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the time of every member of the university staff would necessarily be spent on research—an assumption which may well have been justified at that time in terms of the numbers of staff involved. We still make the same assumption, apparently, judging by the staffing ratios which now obtain for all 44 universities and all 30 polytechnics, and increasingly for colleges of education. I am bound to advise your Lordships that I do not believe that that amount of research is either necessary or desirable and, looking at the results of some of it, I think it was not worth the money that was invested in it. Therefore, I am putting to your Lordships the urgent need for a re-examination of what has happened in these last 35 years, and the most fundamental thing that has happened
1516
is our utter failure to recognise the change of circumstance of this nation.
Thirty-five years ago we had an empire. We may have been justified in assuming that the education service made its great contribution by educating people who could persuade as administrators of our colonies, and could from those colonies produce substantial wealth which helped to sustain the standard of life in this country. Therefore, our emphasis on high academic standards was probably justified. That is not the situation any more. We are now facing the fact that we have to produce wealth by our own people in this country.
What has happened in that setting over the last 10 or 15 years? I was a member of the Henniker-Heaton Committee, which looked at this problem of providing effective education and training for the 16 to 19 age groups. We recommended that there should be an increase from 250,000 to half a million on day release within a period of five years. That was 14 years ago. What has happened in those 14 years is that the number on day release has dropped from 250.000 to 200,000. But at that Same time, over that same period, the report of my noble friend Lord Robbins appeared, and what is the result of his report? It is a rapid and great increase in the provision of higher education. I esteem high academic values as much as anybody, but this nation must come to recognise that unless it offers equal esteem to those who design, create, make and sell, we will not be able to sustain the standard of living which we now enjoy. We must strengthen our provision in these fields.
All of this leads me to make a plea to the Government. This is not the Bill we need. We need a new Education Act, a major Act defining primary education from five to 11, defining secondary education from 11 to 16, defining tertiary education from 16 to 19. There is great concern over the number of unemployed school leavers, and there seems to be an assumption that this is a transient problem; that it will disappear. I do not share that view. This is a trend and it will increase. The number of unemployed school-leavers in 1969 was 15,000. It had grown to 65,000 by 1971, it had grown to about 115,000 last year and it has grown to 209,000 this year.

1517
There is a fundamental fact which is emerging all over Europe as well as in this country. We are going to reach a stage, relatively shortly, when the 16 to 19 age group is not required in industry and commerce. We will be under an obligation to provide full-time education and/or training for these age groups. Therefore, I want a new definition of the tertiary stage of education, and I hope, a steady move to the establishment of tertiary colleges; not sixth form colleges which offer A-levels, but tertiary colleges which offer A-levels of the highest possible standard, I hope, but other qualifications for the Technical Education Council or the Business Education Council; which offer a range of courses; which offer full-time and part-time education—and I do not mean merely the alternatives of full-time or one day a week—which offer a structure of sandwich courses combining practical experience in the different branches of industry or commerce with continuous study which equips the young person at 18-plus either to go on to higher education, if that is his choice, or to go into industry and commerce, but equipped to make a real contribution to the development of wealth in this country.
It is a fact of history that we have never produced a major Education Act in this country except after a war—1870, 1902, 1918 and 1944. Is it too much to hope that in peacetime we could produce an Education Act which would provide as adequately for the needs of the next 30 years as the 1944 Act has provided for the last 30; which would seek to reconcile Party political differences; which would seek to do what we are all agreed on—to provide full educational opportunity, full opportunity of training, for every child whether very able or more limited, whether his talents lie in this field or in that? 'What we are discussing is how best to do that within the limit of resources which the nation can make available. I venture to plead with the Government: take this Bill away and bring in a real Education Bill which we urgently need.
1.40 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has ranged very widely and I hope merely to restate some of the
1518
fundamental principles of the Bill which have got rather lost in the attacks made on it by the Opposition, mainly based, so far as I can see, upon two assumptions: first, that the Bill is Socialistic and therefore bad; secondly, that it is bureaucratic and therefore bad; and perhaps I should add a third identification of intelligence and academic excellence with the middle class.
My first proposition is that the Bill does not erect that monster of nationwide uniformity so eloquently sketched by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which previously I had hoped had been destroyed by my noble friend the Minister. We are not introducing a system which prevailed, certainly until recently, and may still hold, in France, when the Minister of Education could look at his watch and say, "Every child in France is now studying the Napoleonic wars" We are not doing that. No comprehensive school is the identical twin of another. Every comprehensive school has its own individuality. The children are different, the staffs are different, the teaching methods are different, the governors are different, and in different areas the local education authority is different. They are no more like one another than chalk is like cheese.
My second proposition is to uphold the contradiction in terms which passes as a compromise and which was the cause of the dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who, I regret, is not in his place to acknowledge his defeat by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. "Comprehensive" might become a technical term which would apply with a large
"C" to anything, but in the ordinary English sense in which we use it, it means all-inclusive. If I bought a comprehensive English dictionary I should be annoyed if I found I had to buy another English dictionary in order to get all the words derived from Latin. That seems to be the construction of comprehensive which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was attempting to place on the term. To say that for comprehensive schools to exist side by side with selective schools is a compromise is not true—it is a contradiction in terms.
Schools are supposed to be a preparation for life and life does not consist of

1519
mixing entirely with your own kind. One of the first things that one has to learn—and one had better learn it early—is that so far as intellectual qualities are concerned one may expect to meet a number of people who are a great deal cleverer than oneself and perhaps some people who are not quite so clever. That is the reason for combining different levels of ability in the same educational institutions, but I would agree—and this is the only point on which I came within several yards of agreeing with anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—when he gave priority to pastoral care over academic skill in schools. I would not perhaps have called it pastoral care but would prefer to say that a wider social and emotional development was more important than academic excellence. I sometimes tend to think that "academic" means out of touch with reality but that perhaps is a little aside from the purposes of the present Bill.
My Lords, in later life, on the shop floor, in the factory, in professions, in business, maybe even in your Lordships' House, we expect to meet persons of social backgrounds different from our own, with different ideologies and different religions and perhaps of different races, and we have to get on terms with them professionally and socially. The most important thing is that we should start to learn this lesson early. The great merit of the comprehensive school is that it provides for learning that lesson early. The comprehensive school will include children from all these backgrounds and in that way will create the social cohesion about which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was so despondent. This mixing of all sorts—and we might remind ourselves of the old adage that it takes all sorts to make the world-takes place on a basis of day-to-day practical experience and of equality within the school, not as a result solely of moralistic teaching but in the attitude and atmosphere which prevails in the school. So children who go to schools with this mixture will have the opportunity of absorbing, not merely learning, the lesson that in a civilised democratic community the relations of all sorts must be based on mutual respect and mutual tolerance.
1.46 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I rise to speak with diffidence. I am not an
1520
educationalist in the narrowest sense of the word, but I make three points at this stage of the Bill on the grounds that, first as a children's officer, then as a Director of Social Services, and on behalf of a local authority, I and the local social work staff in any one year stood in loco parentis to approximately 270 children and young persons up to the age of 18 years. There were also those children who were under statutory supervision under the Matrimonial Causes Act and other Acts relating to children. Finally, there were those children whose parents voluntarily sought advice over particular difficulties, not so much with children but in respect of unusually difficult home circumstances. Such instances were children of widows; some were children of separated and divorced parents; some were children of Service families where one or both parents were out of the country. Some came from neighbourhoods of such size and type that the children experienced no sense of identity.
In other cases parents in difficult circumstances were honest enough to admit that in their peculiar home circumstances they could not meet the needs of their children. Indeed, it could be said that such children were known to me personally and came from all social, financial and educational backgrounds and were children of all abilities. They were children who had suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. Their common denominator was that there was a particular individual need of both child and home and I look back with gratitude to some of the smaller day and boarding schools, some voluntary, some controlled, some direct grant schools, for accepting a proportion of children who were not handicapped, not maladjusted within the meaning of the Act, but whose family circumstances, as I said earlier, required specialised consideration.
Clause 1(2)(a) of the Bill excludes from the comprehensive system:
"pupils suffering from disability of mind and body;"
in other words, special schools. Under Clause 5, as I understand it, it is not the Minister's intention to stop particular cases from going to particular schools, but the general reduction of assisted places in non-maintained schools would mean that parents might not receive specialised help

1521
for their children which might be a preventive measure against the development of difficult behaviour later, and, in some instances, forestalling delinquency. Because such parents could not afford the fees they might in certain circumstances—and this has happened—be driven against their will to apply to the already over-burdened social services department for special help to carry their own responsibilities.
I believe that wherever possible and practicable children should surely be with their own or substitute families, in their own homes, in their own neighbourhoods. It could be argued, as has been argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, that all children can receive the help they require from comprehensive schools. Experience leads me to appreciate that some such cases can and do receive special support but that there are others where alternative provision must be made.
Under Clause 5, as I understand it, the Minister's intention is not to prevent a proportion of such cases from going to particular schools; but the overall decision as to whether a child should have an assisted place at a particular school lies not with the local authority but with the Minister. One would view with apprehension the exercise of his powers to prevent children in need of particular schooling on social grounds from receiving it. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in the field of social services the Minister, Dr. David Owen, stresses the need for partnership between the statutory and voluntary sectors and, indeed, gives practical evidence of this by making grants to voluntary organisations to help children and families with particular problems.
My second point concerns Clauses 1, 2 and 3. It is with diffidence that I touch upon this point as it has been so wonderfully touched upon by previous speakers, but as an ex-local government chief officer I cannot but be deeply concerned that the time-scale for the implementation of the comprehensive principle has not yet been set and that possibly local authorities may be given little time to implement their plans. Local authorities, none better, know the circumstances of their areas. Nothing is more likely to bring the comprehensive principle into
1522
disrepute than the hasty, ill-conceived implementation of plans, with split sites and staff ill-equipped to deal with their changed responsibility.
May I ask whether there has been any research into the optimum size of a school to meet the needs of the children, enabling teachers to work positively without strain and in the interests of learning? Do we know the right type of building? Would not it he wise to make a study of the factors which have resulted in the happy, effective comprehensive schools and to compare those factors with the comprehensive school where there is violence, unhappiness and inadequate learning? In some areas disillusionment is setting in for parents, children and teachers. The feeling of euphoria for the comprehensive system is waning.
My third and last point concerns Clause 7, with which I agree, but may I ask the Minister whether further categories can be considered? I refer to discretionary awards for mature students in the personal social services. It is agreed, I believe, by both the Department of Health and Social Security and the Council for Training and Education in Social Work that more qualified social workers are required. Many people, especially magistrates, are calling for older, experienced social workers who are able to stay in post for a longer time. The older man or woman whose children are on the way to being independent have much to offer. They seek to enter social work, but because in their teens they received a mandatory award, as mature students they are refused a discretionary grant. Furthermore, there are important and necessary specialist short courses, such as those which are run at the National Institute for Training in Social Work, where there are vacancies. Yet the need for specialised training is of vital importance to social workers and, in the context of this Bill, to those dealing with children and their families.
1.55 p.m.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill with a sense of paradox. So much in my own life has depended upon my ability to pass exams and show what is called academic ability that I can well understand those noble Lords in academic life who will be speaking against the Bill and on behalf of retaining I the maintained grammar schools, from

1523
which some of them came and which have contributed so much to the life of the country in the first half of this century. But I do not do so, for a number of reasons. I support the Bill and my first reason for doing so is a political one.
Well over a century ago a great Tory Prime Minister coined a phrase. He told us that Britain is divided into two nations. I heard that phrase used again in odd circumstances last autumn. I am afraid that I was absent from my place in the House for a little while this morning and I apologise for my absence, which was connected with the business of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, of which I am chairman. Last autumn a few of us visited Western Germany to study their broadcasting system, and there in the British Embassy after dinner I had the opportunity of a long talk with a prominent Minister in the German Government. Among other things, I asked him why it is that their trade union movement is notably less militant than ours. He replied, "Oh, because you are a country of two nations. Look at your educational system. Germany used to be such a country, too." Then, engagingly, he added, "The destruction of the two nations, though we do not like to admit it, began with Hitler. But the old system was totally destroyed in 1945 and then for a decade we were all ruined and levelled."
Today there are, of course, enormous differences in wealth in Western Germany, but everybody believes he has an equal start in the schools. One great source of class discontent has been removed. That is why for many years now I have advocated a comprehensive system. We cannot predict at 11-plus which children will develop mentally better than others. All we can do is to endorse those who have come from the homes of educated and responsible parents, be they rich or be they poor. The whole principle of the comprehensive system is to stop irrevocable choices being made about a child's future at 11-plus and to postpone those choices for as long as we possibly can.
There is another reason why I am in favour of comprehensive schools. I am not a grammar school boy. I went to a public school where the spread of ability was far wider. I well know that those
1524
famous headmasters, Sir Robert Birley and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, wag a finger at anybody who suggests that a public school remotely resembles a modern comprehensive. After all, most public schools did not admit boys of lower IQs than 90 and they superannuated ruthlessly if they could not get their Remove those who could not tackle the strictly academic curriculum followed in public schools. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, would confirm, if they were in their places at this moment, since they were both in my house, that in my own school there were considerable numbers of exceedingly nice but, I have to say, exceedingly thick boys; and I think that it was a better school for that.
I am not so totally enamoured of the forcing house of the grammar school as are some people. What is more, my school had a sense of proportion. We were pleased when some of us got scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge because that usually meant an extra half holiday. But there were lots of other ways in which boys could excel and develop their personalities. The greatest blot on the grammar schools was that they concentrated so hard on winning those academic blue ribands that they so often forgot half or at least one-third of the school. It was all right if you were in the A stream; you got all the attention you needed from devoted masters. But if you were in the C or the D stream as a boy or girl you got a far worse education than you could get if you went to a comprehensive school today. May I ask a question which I hope will not be thought offensive?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, may I ask him to quantify his somewhat impressionistic remarks? When he says that a lot of his contemporaries at Stowe were "thick" does he mean that a large number did not get O levels or had IQs below 100 or 110? So often when those of us who are academic talk about "thick" we mean someone who gets a two two instead of a first. Could he just quantify those records?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, indeed I will for the noble Lord. I have to confess that at the time when I was at Stowe it is perfectly true that numbers of boys—

1525
I do not say very many but at least, I should have thought, about 15 per cent.—never were able quite to attain that level which then was called School Certificate—that is to say, they did not matriculate. They might have got one pass, possibly one credit, on School Certificate. But we did take a number of boys who were not intellectually of the most distinguished kind. It is not easy for someone who is so knowledgeable and so experienced as the noble Lord, Lord James, in those great schools of Winchester and Manchester Grammar School (in which Winchester, if I may say so, is the equivalent in the public school system of Manchester Grammar School in the direct grant schools), to understand how limited in their intellectual attainments at their age some boys in public schools were.
I want to ask this question. How many noble Lords today know intimately some of those who teach in comprehensives? Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, does, but how many of us extrapolate from our school days and apply out-of-date concepts to education today? I happen to know some teachers, two of them very intimately, in the comprehensive school system. My sister-in-law is deputy head-mistress in a 12 form entry all-through comprehensive from 11 to 18 consisting of 2,000 pupils. Her son, my nephew, is deputy headmaster of a high school comprehensive of boys of 12 to 16 which sends pupils on to a sixth form college. Both schools are in Middlesex but they are emphatically not suburban middle class schools. Both have about 10 per cent. black children; both have cases of truancy and difficulty. What schools have not? Public schools certainly do, but they cope with these cases. Both these schools—I confess I gasped first with horror and then with mounting admiration as I hear their academic records—are unstreamed.
My Lords, let me tell you what my kinsmen tell me—and let me tell you while apologising for producing such personal evidence—that they are very far from being progressive starry-eyed intellectuals. Indeed, I am afraid I have to tell the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I suspect that in a General Election they are far more likely to vote for the Party to which the noble Lords who sit opposite belong than to
1526
his. They are tough, dedicated, hardheaded but warm-hearted professionals. This is what they tell me when I ask them questions. The questions I fear are always on one theme. I ask them, on the theme which has been uppermost in your Lordships' minds today—what about academic standards? Before the war my sister-in-law took the Higher Certificate in science before university. She says that the present system of GCE A-level is far beyond the one she took in complexity and it rests less on memory work than on ability to analyse. The children in her school cope with it. Indeed she told me that the head boy is doing three A levels and hopes to enter University College—hardly a rundown university—in chemical engineering. But what she emphasises is how many more children are staying on in the sixth form and not, like that head boy, to go to university as they would if they had been to a grammar school. Masses stay on to get more O levels and one A level and they do business studies; others of less ability stay on to get some O levels after CSE and do English practice. These are the children who go to polytechnics and further education colleges. In the heyday of the grammar schools they stopped academic work at 15. Do we want to go back to that?
We at the public schools used to pride ourselves that the clevers had to mix with the majority and learn to get on with them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said a moment ago, even though in the words of that quatrain it has to be said that the good are so harsh to the clever and the clever so rude to the good. But the comprehensive school today is doing not only that; it is doing something much more important. It is enabling the clever boy from a good home with all advantages to learn how to get on with his fellow citizens. My Lords, much industrial unrest would have been avoided if only we had done that long ago. Such mixing is at the root of the solving of problems of man management. Moreover, though it has been said so often when standards are mentioned let me say it again: nearly all comprehensives are still enlarged secondary moderns. Even where grammar schools have been phased out it will not be before 1978 that the first uncreamed O level candidates will appear.

1527
In the Harrow area where my nephew teaches there are still two grammar schools, though these will go next year. No comparison of examination results between these two types of school are of any value whatsoever. Everyone knows that what this country needs is people with technical ability but that technically and scientifically trained boys and girls must not be merely numerate; they must be literate. In the average grammar school with three to four form entry boys and girls are forced to choose, at 14 very often, whether to do arts or whether to do science. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, whom I well know and from whom I have listened to many persuasive speeches in defence of the grammar school, has deplored this particular choice and has written most eloquently on the need for those who understand science to understand the humanities, and perhaps more important for those who understand the humanities to understand the problems of numeracy.
In the comprehensives they are already doing mixed science and arts courses right up to the sixth form. It is easy to do when you have 500 in the sixth form. Only in the last year in a big comprehensive will you make a dash for either the sciences or humanities, just as you do in France or in Germany. What grammar school really prepares, as comprehensive schools do, children for engineering? No grammar school does, and when I have to ask myself whether it is a choice between producing Fellows of the Royal Society in future or producing technicians I say that you do not have to worry about that choice. Fellows of the Royal Society will emerge through whatever educational system this country ordains. But it is the technicians which we have lacked so terribly in the last years—in the last 20 to 30 years and, indeed, before.
I have to ask myself, will there be a loss if this Bill goes through? Will there be a fall in standards if the Bill passes? My Lords, I want to tell you the truth: there will be. I frankly admit that for some time I do not expect to see coming out of the comprehensive sixth form those superbly drilled intellects which emerged from our leading public schools and from the best direct grant schools, or, indeed, from the maintained grammar schools,
1528
such as Maidstone or Emmanuel. These boys and girls will not, by the age of 18, have mastered the use of the enclitic D; they will not be able to construe Tacitus unseen; they will not be able to manipulate N-dimensional geometry; they will not be able to write epigrammatic essays on the rise of the gentry in the 17th century citing Tawney, Trevor Roper and Stone. I mourn that loss; I remember what fun it was to examine the essays and papers of such brilliant boys and girls.
Moreover, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—and I am delighted to see that he is now in his place in the Chamber—I belong to a society designed to promote the interests of exceptionally dazzling and brilliant children, and I am more convinced than I was that we need to have exceptional schools for them. But let us be clear that in mentioning such children we are not talking about 30 per cent. of schoolchildren as we were in days gone by in the division between the secondary modern and the grammar schools—we are talking of 0·5 per cent., perhaps 6,000 to 7,000 children—the real Wunderkinder. Might I refer Members of your Lordships' House to certain paragraphs in the report of the Commission on the Direct Grant Schools—their second Report in Volume 1—which dealt with gifted children and showed in fact how it was possible to do something for them.
Standards matter terribly, and I would not have made the admission which I made a moment ago had I not felt that. I would betray everything that I stood for if I did not declare how vital it is to maintain standards and how enraged I am by the disgusting events at the William Tyndale School. There is clear evidence there of the betrayal of children. The execrable Mr. Hadow is nothing but a modern Squeers, and on the whole I prefer Squeers. Squeers exploited children at Dotheboys Hall for the money he could get out of them. Hadow exploited them to satisfy his own dreary little ego. Squeers did not bother to teach them how to spell "winder"—window; Hadow made it impossible for any of the staff to teach them. Squeers beat the boys' bodies black and blue, but Hadow assaulted his pupils' minds. What are we to say of this loathsome, self-righteous tit-Titan who tries to humiliate children

1529
and incite others by calling them "scabs" because they will not support his strike action?
My Lords, there always were bad schools, there always will be bad schools; there always were, in public schools, bad houses and, no doubt, there always will be. But we must find ways of coping with them and I very much hope that as a result of the Orde inquiry this will be one of the first concerns of the Department of Education and Science. Of course there has been—and I would go all the way with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on this—a fall in the standards of the writing of good English and there has been a catastrophic fall in the standards of mathematics and science. I am not complacent and I fear the destruction of the GCE system of public examinations at the hands of the NUT and the egalitarians. Never let teachers control education totally, my Lords. Bring in parents as the countervailing force, because parents today are better educated and more concerned. The most vital task for the DES in school education today is to erect a new and clear structure of responsibility between headmaster, parents, governor, manager and the local education authority. It is always the wretched Mrs. Walker on occasions such as recently who gets it "in the neck"—not always the people who are really responsible. The Tyndale inquiry shows that the system of responsibility for the management of schools is in a mess.
But let us put this fall in standards in perspective. It is due to two facts: first, in the 'fifties and 'sixties the avid demand of industry and business for computer experts and scientists—though not, alas! for engineers to the same degree. The second reason was the too rapid expansion of higher education in the 'sixties and 'seventies which has denuded the schools of teachers. Both of these should ease in the next two decades and there must be a system negotiated with the unions for easing out incompetent teachers who took to teaching at a time of shortage of teachers, and replacing them with the good new blood which will soon be flowing.
Then watch the old Colleges of Education and see that the teaching of teachers is not perverted. Set minimum attainments for various ability groups at various
1530
ages and of minimum mathematical qualifications for teachers corresponding to the pupil groups as my colleague at the University of London, Dr. Bryan Thwaites, has suggested. Allow universities and polytechnics to permit a limited number of students a fourth year either to remedy deficiencies and to transfer across the Humanities-Engineering boundary or allow them to acquire post-first degree technical qualifications. Take special steps—and here, I think, again of the gifted children in the schools—so that they can "get ahead sideways", as it is called technically, so that they may explore a subject in depth and breadth. Do not applaud those schools which want to eliminate all competition and who never permit anyone to succeed or fail. What do such schools do but mentally emasculate or hysterectomise boys and girls?
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how he would hysterectomise a boy?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I was referring when I used that word to girls. I wish to add just one other thing. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, made an excellent point about the need for home-based students in order to reduce the costs of higher education and the training of teachers. I entirely agree with and have been long involved in campaigning for the universities themselves to do something about that. However, none of this will be of any value if your Lordships do not pass this Bill and end, once and for all, the wretched debate which has plagued the childrens' and parents' lives over these past years.
Let me put myself behind the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and others, who have pleaded for the fact that in the next few years we shall have to have a new Education Act which will define what we are trying to do for children and for adolescents at different stages in their careers. For this debate can end only one way. Noble Lords opposite are not opposed to comprehensive schools—their Party says that they welcome them. They are only opposed to making them truly comprehensive and including in them the children who would raise their tone and achievements. I would add that great concessions have been made by

1531
Labour Governments, today and in the past. They have not touched the public schools and those direct grant schools. I rather think they were wrong not to do so after the Public Schools Commission reported, but for mat I blame Labour supporters who were as doctrinaire in their hatred of the independent schools as the Conservatives and Liberals were blind in their support. It is time now for the Opposition to make a concession and pass this Bill. It is time for us all to remember Disraeli and take one tiny step in the direction of abolishing the two nations.
2.20 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, so many notable authorities on education have already spoken, or are to speak, in this debate, that as a very ordinary person I find it hard to speak in a debate like this. The Bill before us has but few virtues and is lamentably inadequate. It takes no account of the sort of thing that parents are saying so anxiously. It does not deal with the burning question of discipline: it does nothing to strengthen the hands of school governors. I will cite only one relevant incident that has recently come to my notice. It occurred in a large comprehensive school.
Recently, a family which had just moved had perforce to send their son to this comprehensive school as the only school in the neighbourhood. They had no choice. After four weeks the parents were sent a report, which said how hard their son was trying in French. The parents were astonished, and even more surprised was their son, because he said he had never attended a single French class, and knew no French at all. Surely this is hardly a recommendation for the school, for the teacher or for the headmaster, who I imagine signed the report. One would at least expect a school report to be accurate in basic particulars. Even if the governors wished to take action, what could they do, beyond a mild indication of disapproval?
My Lords, my particular anxiety is for the disabled, both in mind and in body. As Mr. Jack Ashley has said in a most notable speech in another place, the disabled suffer from great loneliness and a great sense of isolation. A school is a social institution which has, as its
1532
object, amongst others, that of integrating the young into society. If we are to have truly comprehensive schools, these schools must include as many of the disadvantaged members of society as it is possible for them to cope with. There is a great deal of worry amongst parents today about discipline, and I hope that the Government will be able to do something about it. Much of it is certainly due to the absence of sufficient outlets for self-expression in constructive endeavours both in school and in the playground. If in every school those with some form of disability were included, and the able-bodied young encouraged to help those less able to help themselves, it might well encourage them to do something wholesome and of benefit to themselves as well as helpful to society.
My Lords, no less than 97 per cent. of blind children and 42 per cent. of partially blind children are at present segregated in special boarding schools. They are apart from healthy, sighted children—and indeed apart from their families. I am sure that these boarding schools are excellent. But I wonder, when 3 per cent. of blind children and 58 per cent. of partially blind children can be accommodated and taught in ordinary schools, whether these percentages cannot be increased? As I have said, they and the deaf suffer from great loneliness because of their segregation, and anything that can be done to mitigate this loneliness is well worth the trouble. It is certainly to the disadvantage of the blind to educate them separately. It cuts them off from normal children who are in the great majority. It cuts them off from any advantages of comprehensive education, and thus very often from higher education, especially as they fear they are to remain in schools with the 11 plus selection which decides their education from then on. Surely, what is wanted are specialised units, one at least in every catchment area, which will deal with the blind children in it.
Another problem is the autistic children. The National Society for Autistic Children is very anxious about the number of autistic children in special schools, and the fact that their education ends at 16, other than at day centres. The Society would like to see autistic children staying in their special schools at least until they

1533
are 19, because very often it is only in their late teens that autistic children begin to understand what society demands of them as people. When they leave at 16, they are virtually cast adrift on an unwelcome world. The Society feels that there is a greater chance for them to benefit from day centre training if their basic education has been more thorough.
Very many parents are worried at the lack of facilities for these children after the age of 16, especially because as the children grow older and stronger, they themselves find they are tired and getting more old and frail. I can see no reason why physically disabled children, and especially those in wheelchairs, should not be enabled to attend ordinary schools. So often they are prevented because there is a lack of suitable provision for means of access in the shape of ramps, and so on. It should surely be required of local authorities, when the design of schools is planned, to make provision for the physically handicapped, and not for this to be the exception.
For them, as for others, I think I need hardly point out that the integration where possible of handicapped children into ordinary schools can well result in an economy. But I do not advocate this integration simply on the grounds of economy. I hope that the Government will consider the points I have made on integration of the disabled, because it will benefit not only them, but the able-bodied as well. It will help them to a greater understanding of each other's needs while young, and so to a better understanding of each other in the future.
2.26 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, because she speaks with such sincerity and knowledge of the specific subject with which she wishes to deal. One could meander over the whole gamut of education, but we are talking about the Education Bill. I will try and maintain my speech within the area of this Education Bill. Much that has been said today could have been left out of speeches, because if one picks up the Report for this year of the Department of Education and Science, published in June, and looks at the index, one sees that nearly everything that has been spoken
1534
about gets some attention, and the Department of Education and Science is not full of fools. It may be they are limited with finance. I do not agree all the time that one must be pushed along by just a civil servant, or by bureaucracy, but let us pay tribute to some very dedicated people within the Department of Education and Science who, over the years, have been dealing with very difficult problems—and many of the problems are due to the fact that they have not had the finance.
Yesterday we had an analysis of finance so beautifully given, rendered with perfect diction and in a most gentlemanly manner by a kindly individual, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. But if he mixes up current expenditure, capital expenditure and brought-forward statistics, which makes people think we are pouring money out and nothing is moving within society, then all analysis of transfer payments and capital costs is lost. The fact is that over all the years the capital expenditures are very near together all along the line. I do not want to develop that, or we shall be here for a long time, but let us think of the logic of what we are talking about.
My Lords, it has become fashionable to accuse the public sector of pre-empting resources to the detriment of industry—that is the nub of the problem—and to the detriment of investments and exports. That is a regrettable trend. I blame some of the economists who try to blind you with mathematics and calculus and, in the end, prove nothing definite. That excuse has been made for such articles as we saw in the Daily Express yesterday under the heading, "Politics and Education". Then there is the article by the Shadow spokesman on Education, bless him, Norman St. John-Stevas, who talks of Mulley's steamroller pushing this educational system through. I was delighted to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, but he frightened me because I am old enough to remember the May Report. Let us see what it said. At that time, I was earning a magnificent salary of about £12 a month, lecturing and teaching. In 1931 we had the May Report, and, Heavens above, I thought, the noble Lord is repeating it in 1977. In 1931 came the famous May Report which shamelessly stated:
"Since the standard of education"—

1535
God help that standard!—
"elementary and secondary, that is being given to the child of poor parents is already in very many cases superior to that which the middle-class parent is providing for his own child, we feel it is time to pause in this policy of expansion".
That is what they said. I worked in this period. Can you have any more class prejudice than that? They thought that my type of child was getting too near the overprivileged, and we had to fight our way through examinations and scholarships to grammar schools. I do not denigrate the grammar schools, but they made machines of us. We were terrified; we had to pass our certificates for our grubstakes. There was terrific incentive. Those of us who failed were shining our trousers on lamp-posts in South Wales. That was the kind of society in which we lived. We had better look at this marvellous education system. When it came to Stowe, David Niven was as good as any vagabond that came out of there, a brilliant one, but I would not have called David's period at Stowe one of the highest and finest.
Lord ANNAN: How right you would be!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is not to say that I am denigrating the gentleman for whom I have a great respect; he has turned out to be a magnificent citizen of the world. Let us get our values right. Do not judge on this sort of simple standard that has been taken. Traditional problems are now giving way to a new set of problems in society, relating to the modern organisational society in which we live today. The entire world is now so small, a world where you throw your voice to the limits of the universe in seconds, where you pick up pictures from Mars and when you can fly round the world in seconds. In that kind of world the monetary system of Julius Caesar and the philosophy of translating perpetually Latin, Virgil or Greek, or what have you, does not fit in.
Consequently, I agree entirely that we must have an approach to technology, but God forbid that you make technological man just a fellow with a spark and a spanner in his hand and no soul in his body. We have to find the balance in this kind of individual. Labour traditionally had an aim. I came into politics
1536
because I wanted equality of opportunity. The right honourable Lady who is the Leader of the Conservative Party, like Hegel philosophically, has put that on its head. Equality of opportunity, she now seems to say, equals inequality ultimately. But whatever it is, we all know what we mean when we say we want equality of opportunity. We have had for a couple of centuries a class-ridden disastrous system of society. As a matter of fact we lost North America through it. We want to get rid of this segregation.
It should also be understood that work should no longer be a scarce privilege, but it is becoming that with the unemployment. It is the basic right of humanity. Nobody knew the evils of the 11-plus system better than I did. I told this House the story of my brother who rang up about my nephew who was going to do his A-levels. I thought he was not pulling my leg. He said he was doing Welsh, woodwork and scripture. I said "Is he going to the university?" and he said, "Good God, no, he has got more sense than that. He is going to be an undertaker in Aberystwyth". You have got to get the perspective right. There is nothing wrong with his taking A-levels in those subjects if it is going to make him a good undertaker. He is quite as useful to society as the doctor allowed to make a killing. Our new educational system aims at wiping away the old bitter class divisions, and thank goodness they are disappearing—you even accept me in this House now!
The Welfare State is here to stay, and the Conservatives agree with it as much as we do. There may be different degrees of what we will spend. However inadequate the State is, it has done a marvellous thing. The kid of today is about five inches taller than he was in my day, and you have to give him bigger school desks. And though we scoff at school milk, it has made him a greater and better human being, and we get better Rugby players now in Wales than we did in my day.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, we do not have school milk any more?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Well, they are charging 10p extra. But do not let us go on ad libbing or we shall be here another hour.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise who started school milk in this country?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am not saying that the Conservative Party did not do anything. Of course they did.
Lord BOOTHBY: I did.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Well, the noble Lord can claim credit for his Party.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I must intervene. It was not Lord Boothby; it was my husband who started the milk in schools.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, that is the wonderful thing about this noble House; ultimately we dig out the truth. For too long modern education has been hampered, hindered and shackled by the social baggage of the haughtiness and arrogance of the past. That is what is in the objection to this Bill, the haughtiness and arrogance of the past. Because of what? Fear; fear that the privilege will be lost. It will not be lost; the privilege will be there. There are certain privileges which are bound to be there, because of differences in stature and mental ability. Nevertheless we do not want the haughtiness and arrogance to go with it. A faux pas was committed by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. He said we have only had great changes in education when there has been a war. If he had read his Marx he would know why. Why in 1902? Well, we could not get troops who were taller than five foot one to fight for us. Seventy thousand were turned down before World War I because they were under five foot three. So we formed the Bantams. This is a fact; nobody can contradict it. They were ill-fed in their bodies and neglected in their minds. So we built up social vagabonds. More than yesterday's crime statistics existed in those Victorian times.
True education, therefore, aims at liberating mankind from thralldom and our comprehensive system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said, is aiming at doing this. It is aiming at destroying submissive obedience to forces that appear
1538
to be beyond the understanding and questioning of man. We must learn to assert our political mastery over our social problems, our problems of production, distribution and exchange, whatever system you call it. This is what mankind is searching for, and it is bound to come. It may not be the social concept I had, but we want to train people to have the courage to fight these problems, and we can only do it if there is educational opportunity based on our concept of comprehensive education.
The tragic figures of unemployment among school leavers could really be compared with those of 1928. Crimes of violence in London had increased—and I take my statistics from the LCC Report—437 per cent. over the 10 year period to 1928. Those of your Lordships who remember Titmus remember all these issues about our declining population and crime and punishment; we had all these arguments in the 'thirties, all this violence, razor blades on the racecourses, the lot. What is the matter with the memory of people? They think we are living in a kind of society that has never been so wicked. The urbanised social vagabond that we have built up, meandering over our untidy, motorised, noisy, horribly advertised streets, is on the increase. Why? Because as we cut our education costs we cut him free too. Yet when we cut through the ballyhoo and all the taboo that has been built up by the private school system of education, we find that in the 1930's the Ministry of Labour Gazette told us that in London one and a half million people were supported by charity. From 1923 to 1932 the LCC statistics show—and if you do not believe me look up the book, Metropolitan Man—over 2 million food tickets were issued every year to destitute people on the Embankment and I million free tickets for night shelter were given, yet we are grumbling about this transition period. People do not know what starvation and crises are compared with what happened in my day. They grumble about spending a little more of the nation's wealth on educating our children.
Remember, my Lords, that in the days about which I am speaking we were living in an Empire on which the sun was said never to set. When people moan today they should give a little thought to the

1539
past. They should remember that despite all our errors, all our difficulties and the fact that, for example, we may not be able to beat the West Indies, our standard of life is much better than it was generations ago, and we can make it better still. How many people appreciate that in the days I am talking about, for every three corpses in London one was laid out on the workhouse slab? That was in 1936 and those who do not believe me can look up the LCC statistics. One in every three who died was too poor, was a pauper, and finished up on the workhouse slab. For goodness sake, let us shake ourselves a bit! In those days we were supposed to be the richest country, with an empire, yet today we are not prepared to spend on education because we are told that we need more investment. Instead of investment we will get social vagabonds who descend into crime; that is, if we do not spend on educating our children.
I am sorry to go on about the past but it is necessary to bring the facts home. Think of the condescending system under which we lived when stale bread and cake was fed to the poor every night through the agency of charitable institutions in London. Nowadays it is sent to kennels and rat farms or disposed of with pig wash. This information comes from the LCC's report on the disposal of garbage. Around 1936 they gave some of it to the poor in my area. Despite all that, some people refuse to spend a trifling few millions to change our schools to the comprehensive system in order to build up a decent educational system for our children. Brutalising unemployment builds the thick skin which is the principal defence of the outcast, and, as Lord Alexander tried to prove, two heads are thicker than one. He seemed to be making an argument for cutting the old-fashioned elementary opportunities and he said he wanted technical colleges and polytechnics. He said it as though we had never discussed these matters. I thought that the dear noble Lord thought that he had come down from Heaven to tell us something we did not know. In fact, we know it all. We owe a lot to our children in view of the mess we have made of the society in which we live. I hear some noble Lord mumbling something, but it is no good trying to hide the fact that we have made a mess of our
1540
society. That has happened throughout the world. We should, therefore, now spend some money so that when we quit, society will he a little better than when we came into it. We can do that by giving our kids the opportunity of a comprehensive education.
I do not want to speak too long and I assure noble Lords that I am watching the clock. What also worries me is the fact that with all the high-faluting talk that goes on about education, we are changing homo sapiens into homo ludens. Noble Lords know what I mean; for example, people now want £10 million to knock a golf ball around the course. The real joy of gymnastics—wrestling, boxing and so on—has disappeared because behind it all is the acquisitive cupidity of man. We should be teaching new social values in our schools. The absolutely mindless commercialisation of life is lowering our standards, is justifying greed and is eulogising unlimited acquisitiveness.
The 11-plus examination was an example of that par excellence. "You must get the certificate to get a job", the kids were told. And what about television? What is it? It is the business of delivering our children to advertisers in the vast wasteland of TV bandages. The adult and child mind of today is stuffed with trivialities. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is in his place because he is on the educational broadcasting outfit and I sincerely pay tribute to some of the school broadcasts and hope that in some of the comprehensive schools of tomorrow more will be made of some of the excellent broadcasting that is done by both the BBC and ITV.
Noble Lords will be delighted to hear that I am nearing the end of my speech, but I cannot resume my seat without referring to something that I find absolutely daft, and I do not know whether I am going wrong or it is other people. It is rather like the Common Market; they want to sell more butter and they think they will do that by pushing up the price of margarine. I have never heard of anything sillier. It is crazy. The next one now is the statement that we must cut the supply of teachers. I will not weary the House by quoting again from LCC reports, but I remember a class of 80 kids at a church school when I was a

1541
youngster. In fact, it is not the number of children in a comprehensive school that counts but the number of children the teacher has to teach. Cannot people grasp that point? It is said that a headmaster should know all his pupils. I can see a former Mr. Speaker here and I know that he had to know 615 pupils. It should not be too much for a good headmaster to know 1,000, remembering that those children are with him in the school for seven or eight years. It is an easy job and I cannot understand why people make such mountains out of molehills.
In any case, the people who talk that way have never had a piece of chalk or a duster in their hands. They have never stood before a class or taught the ABC. They could not do it even with their own kids, yet they blame the teachers for not doing it. Then they say that the comprehensive system is upsetting them, and I am delighted that it is. They say that there will be no opportunity for the child who is a born artist or singer. They have not read the Bill. It contains opportunities for expansion in that direction. Of course in Wales we always had those opportunities because at the end of our schooling we had the Eisteddfod. If a boy was thick, like me, he could do a hit of woodwork and win a prize. If he was brilliant—like the noble Lords on the Front Benches in this House who speak on education matters—he got a textbook. I got a plane or a saw as a gift at the Eisteddfod. I am simply pointing out how there are different accomplishments for different human beings. I advise my Party to take no notice of the curmudgeons of noble Lords opposite and to get on with the Bill.
2.47 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not think me lacking in enterprise if I do not try to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in view of all the experiences that he has had in the course of his political and educational, and I do not know what else, life. The noble Lord has obviously had a varied career and has given us the benefit of his views, to which I listened with considerable interest. I want to return to the Bill, which is what we are really here to discuss today, and I do not intend to speak for long.
1542
I have listened to every speech that has been made so far, some of them remarkable, and I have learned a great deal from them. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was particularly interesting and I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I recall that many years ago, when I was running youth clubs, I went to Sheffield at a time when he was the director of education there. I remember having a long talk with him on the subject of developing youth club work and how impressive he was, and I thought that today he was most impressive in what he had to say. I do not intend to speak about education as such. I had very little and it was mostly done in what I suppose would be called an amateurish way, but that is how it was. However, what I am interested in and what I have had a lot to do with is the organisation, the responsibility, involved in being on an education committee and having been chairman of that same committee for seven or eight years. What worries me and what I do not like about the Bill is the erosion—I do not want to use too strong a word—of the responsibilities of local education authorities as opposed to the near dictatorship which comes from central Government.
In local government, when one is elected to the authority and is a member of the local education committee or is its chairman as I was, one is responsible for the education which is carried out in that part of the world. That responsibility is being eroded all the time by Acts of Parliament and points of view which take away from the knowledge and experience and the responsibilities of the democratically elected members of education committees. I believe that that is very dangerous and I hope that, some time or another, it will be put a stop to. Certainly, it will not be in this Bill because the Bill insists that all schools under education authorities shall be comprehensive schools.
Your Lordships have heard from my noble friend Lord Elton and others that on this side of the House we are not opposed to comprehensive schools in principle. What we are opposed to is making everything comprehensive. None of the arguments that I have listened to this afternoon has convinced me that that

1543
is the best way to do what we all want to do, which is to give every child in the country the best experience and the type of education best suited to him or her. My noble friend Lady Faithfull spoke of the individual importance of children who come within the social work side of our national life. I appreciate that and I think she is entirely right. We want to do what we can to make our education system the best for everybody. To say that every single school must be a comprehensive school is, to me, not at all the right way to tackle it.
In the area for which I was responsible, we had two or three large high schools, as we call them in Scotland. They were not comprehensive schools though they were comprehensive to some extent, but of course we did not have those great schools in the rural areas. They would have been entirely wrong. The responsibility that we had in the education committee was not so much in connection with large schools in large areas; rather, we had, at times, to close some of the very small schools with perhaps six or eight children in them and convey them by car to a school four or five miles away where, joined together, we made a small rural school of 20 or 30 children. That was the decision we had to make. If the central Government had come down on us and said, "You cannot do this: you must do a, b, or c; you must do something else quite different", we should all have been extremely annoyed. What is more, the central Government would not have known as much as we knew about the education in that particular area of rural schools.
So I do not agree that there should be this dictatorial way of dealing with local education authorities and saying that they must do exactly what central Government say. I may say that I was exceedingly delighted when we had the result of the Tameside appeal the other day which showed that there are people who think that the authority of local government is something that should be preserved. It is very difficult to have any real authority in local government today. There is another thing one cannot do in local government: if one has a very unsatisfactory teacher, it is exceedingly difficult to get rid of that teacher. It is almost impossible to dismiss a teacher. One
1544
can sometimes change them from one school to another and they may perhaps get on better in another school. I had the experience of trying for some 10 years to get rid of someone whom everybody had admitted was not the right person in the job. Could I?—not at all. Impossible. We had to carry on and I forget what finally happened. I had gone from the education committee by that time, but they managed in the end to dismiss this person, who was highly unsatisfactory and everybody knew it, but one could not do it because of the restrictions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, there can be very good comprehensive schools and not so good comprehensive schools. The point is that we believe that it is not right to say that every school must be comprehensive. There is no reason why one should not have the grammar school. There is no reason why we should not have the public school—indeed, we have them, and many of them are of a very comprehensive nature. I have always thought about public schools that one of the reasons for going there is because one meets the worst as well as the best, the stupidest as well as the most intelligent. One can have a very good taste of the world when one has been to a big public school. It is certainly not an area which is confined either to very clever or not so clever people, intellectual or not so intellectual people. You will find everybody there and entirely agree that that is what you want. But, at the same time, you want to have an opportunity for the parents to say that they would like their children to go to another school, as they have been able to do up to the present time.
That is why I particularly dislike Clause 5, which will make it impossible for the children to have the opportunity of going to another type of school, whether it be a grammar school or any other type of school because the clause will make it impossible to give them any assistance. This will do away with the element of choice, which I believe to be valuable.
I strongly support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the subject of opportunities for continued education, whether it be in technical colleges, sixth form colleges or universities. We have been doing that for many years. During

1545
all the years when I was on the education committee, we never refused a grant to a single child who was going on either to a technical college or a university or where-ever it was he wanted to go. Always the money was made available because the child had got to the point at which it really wanted to do it. We did not suggest that all children should do that. We did not suggest that all children should stay on at school after 15 or 16 as the case may be if they did not want to. But if they did want to we did everything we could to see that they had every opportunity. That, I believe, is the right way to treat these cases. But it was the local education authority that was able to do this because we were the people with the authority. If everything is to be overruled from the central body, I believe that we shall be doing away with something that is extremely valuable and that we may just as well give up the idea of having democratically elected local government education committees. We might just as well have it all directed from the central Government Department, whether it be Whitehall, the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office.
I dislike the Bill for this dictatorial attitude and the dictatorial powers which are being taken. I dislike it for its interference with the elected representatives and for its erosion of their powers and duties and for breaking up so much which is good and valuable in our education. Of course there are bad things—there always have been. One speaker said that the Education Act 1944 was a great Bill: that was put through by my noble friend Lord Butler and there have been other Bills that have also been good Bills, but we on this side believe fundamentally in the opportunity of adapting education to suit the children. We believe that the people who know best about that are the parents and the local education authority, if the matter goes through them, not Whitehall and certainly not a Bill such as we are discussing today.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, would she not agree after her very persuasive speech that Clause 2 (6) specifically prevents the Minister from interfering in affairs where the distribution of ability between schools would be better done in a particular way? Would she not agree
1546
that this does not mean that the Minister is an all-powerful person? He is specifically asked not to do certain things.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, if that is the case and this is left to local education authorities, I am very strongly in favour of it. The particular episode which enraged me was the new Manchester case, which could happen elsewhere if we give central Government the sort of dictatorial powers that arise, for instance, in Clause 1(2).
3 p.m.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, although this is the first appearance of the Bill before the House, we have discussed the principles that underlie it in slightly different forms and slightly different contexts to exhaustion, if not ad nauseam. In the debates on direct grants, and on other occasions, the idea of selection has been the focus of controversy. Those arguments have often been confused by misunderstandings and misstatements—and we had a fair example this afternoon. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that FRSs require no teaching, and that type of thing. We have had all those misstatements and misunderstandings. But those are natural enough. Those of us who are opposed to the abolition of grammar schools have reiterated certain things and, I hope, will go on doing so, even to the point of boredom.
We have tried to prove that instead of increasing the social mixture in our schools, the measures proposed will often diminish it. There again, if the noble Lord, Lord Annan, thinks that you will remove industrial problems by having small neighbourhood schools in a homogeneous area, then his time spent in America has been wasted, or he would have learnt about that.
We have tried to show that what is proposed will not in fact abolish selection, for that simply cannot be abolished. As long as more people want to go to a school than there are places in that school you have to have selection. This kind of Bill will impose selection by neighbourhood or money, instead of by educational need. We have referred in the past, though not today, in tones muted by natural good taste, to the curious

1547
anomaly by which many of those who claim that selection is socially divisive willingly expose their own children to the dangers of corruption by sending them to schools that are not only academically, but socially, extremely selective.
We have pointed out repeatedly that it is not the provision of comprehensive schools to which we object, but the uniform imposition of a comprehensive pattern in all areas, whatever the local needs and local wishes. We have drawn attention to the illogicality of a policy that proclaims the merits of comprehensive schools, yet dare not let them co-exist with grammar schools, because it is known that some parents would choose the latter if their children could get in, so the possibility of choice and the existence of variety must be removed by the simple abolition of one alternative. How easy it would be if all our choices could be made in that way. We have tried to demonstrate, and it is not difficult, that expenditure on a scale unthinkable today would be required to heal such self-inflicted wounds as schools on split sites.
I will not refer further to any of those well-known arguments. I will restrict myself instead to one apparently small severely practical question unrelated to educational or to social theory. I am sticking to it partly because it is a question, more perhaps than any other, which makes me oppose this Bill in the light of a fairly long experience of education. It is the problem of staffing a mixed ability school, particularly a small one. This may seem much too parochial an issue to raise in a Second Reading debate, but it focuses some of our objections to this Bill.
What I have to say is really an elaboration of points which were splendidly made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Let me take the teaching of mathematics simply as an example. This is a subject which I think we should all agree is of the greatest importance, and I will take it as an example of what I am talking about. The number of teachers capable of teaching mathematics to an advanced level—say, to university entrance—is, alas!, small, and despite the efforts which some of us made over the past 30 years it is getting smaller. The number of children
1548
with both the ability and the inclination to learn this subject to this level is also small. Does it not therefore follow inevitably that those children should be concentrated around those very few teachers who can teach them, if we are to make the best use of our human resources?
Let me make the argument clearer and perhaps a little more interesting by an actual illustration. The Godolphin and Latymer School for Girls in Hammersmith is one of the best schools in the country. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, would say that it drilled its pupils, but anyway they turn out pretty well at the end of the process. It is a voluntary aided school which means that it charges no fees and is accessible to any child who can get in. The ILEA in its wisdom (if that phrase does not involve a contradiction in terms) has decided that this school is to become a mini-comprehensive of six or seven hundred. The school is resisting, it is reluctantly going independent, and has launched an appeal so that it can go on educating girls from poor homes.
The appeal brochure contains a photograph that absolutely illustrates my present argument. It is of a mathematics lesson, and on the board are written symbols, such as e—x and cosh x. Noble Lords may be reassured that I really mean cosh x, and not its more low-brow brother cos x. I am sure that many of your Lordships will agree that this is fairly advanced mathematics. Now, if that school becomes non-selective, mini-comprehensive, or if the ILEA refuses, or is not allowed by the Bill, to send suitable girls to it when it becomes an independent school, what happens to that class? Let us get down to the nitty-gritty, and not generalisations, and talk about 14 girls in front of a blackboard. What happens to them?
That class will shrink to perhaps one or two, if it goes on existing at all, and the rest of the girls will be dispersed to other schools where it is arithmetically certain that they cannot hope to get that kind of teacher. She will not know what cosh x means, any more than I really do. What of the teacher with this rare gift? I believe that the ILEA have plans by which such people will be retrained to cope with children of average and below-average ability, if they cannot do so now. It is

1549
like trying to train the Amadeus to play an electric guitar. Is all this really an economic or suitable use of very scarce human resources? Yet this totally unnecessary change, in simple terms, is what this Bill will bring about.
I would ask the Minister, if he will, to answer in the most direct way, in words of one syllable, the question: What steps does he propose to take to ensure that the children with high ability in, say, mathematics—to limit the question—will receive the same standard of teaching in unselective schools, after his Bill has gone through, as they do in selective schools? I hope that he will not reply that this is a matter for the local authorities; for that will not do. After all, his Bill will have certain results. He cannot compel local authorities to a course of action and then tell them to shoulder the responsibility for clearing up the mess that he has forced them to make. But I know that he will not make that response. He will tell us how it is to be done. I hope, too, that he will not he encouraged by his advisers to use words like "enrichment" or "acceleration" because those who know the American scheme will know that that will not do, either.
What I have said about mathematics applies also to science and classics, though less quantifiably to literary subjects. And, ironically, all that I have said about matching the rare teachers to the rare pupils, as a principle of educational organisation, is accepted by the Government, as we all know, for music and dancing. When selection by ability in these fields is allowed, we are told specifically that no attention must be paid in the selection process to academic ability. It would require a Swift, I think, to comment adequately on such a policy. Here we are, a country fighting for its academic life and almost for its social life and we are encouraging selective education for musicians and dancers and subsidies for the coaching of young swimmers, but appropriate and challenging education for the intellectually gifted, for our future scientists and engineers, civil servants, doctors, teachers—all this can only be attained if you are exceptionally lucky, increasingly exceptionally lucky, or if your parents are fairly well off.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I do not want to contradict the noble Lord,
1550
who is so knowledgeable; but am I wrong in thinking that this is the purpose of the sixth form college
A noble Lord: My Lords, too late, far too late.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I know in my own case that my wife was a mathematician and, instead of being in the sixth form of a grammar school, suggested many years ago the idea of a sixth form college—and worked in one—and they took the best of the scientists and mathematicians and picked them because at that age they were ready for university scholarships.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, that is a very interesting question. It would require a long answer. I could make two brief answers. The first is that it is obviously too late, for the mathematician, certainly too late; but also that it is all right for a child from a good home. But the child that both the noble Lord and I care about, the child from the disadvantaged home with the constant dribbling "tele" that child by the time he has got to the age of 16 will not want to go on into the sixth form college.
As our society gets more diseducative—this is a broad issue which I will not go into now—we are faced more and more with the problem of the school trying, as it were, to hold the child to learning and (to use an unpalatable word) to culture. That is why the sixth form college is not really the answer. That is what this Bill means: that only if you are well-off will you get the same opportunity as if you were good at music and dancing—admirable in themselves, but how limited—or swimming.
That is what it means, my Lords. That is why it must be drastically amended. If it is not, then it is not a Swift that we shall require; but in 1,000 years we shall need a Gibbon to record the fate of a nation prepared to foster in its young people every kind of excellence save that of the intellect and to applaud every kind of merit except an appreciation of hard mental effort.
I have said that, I would not talk about education or social theory but about practical methods of deploying

1551
staff. What I have tried to say can be summarised by what one would regard as the most absurd commonplace were it not that it is completely disregarded in this Bill. All I am really doing is to draw attention to the hard and perhaps unpalatable fact that not every teacher can teach everything to any standard, and that not every pupil can learn everything to any standard. To bring together by selection teachers with certain gifts and children who need those gifts is surely the most basic educational common sense. It is true whether we are talking about the gifted, as I am, or the dull and backward. It is more than common sense, it is more than economic prudence; it is common justice; it is justice to our most precious citizens, our children.
3.15 p.m.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, I have listened to every speech but one. I rise with a curious impression, which I have often enough had before, that people expect far too much from education. They think that education can in fact do things which it is entirely incapable of doing and always will be incapable of doing. It is a great, characteristically liberal illusion that find the perfect administrative set up in education then you can have a new heaven and a new earth. We know enough from direct experience to know that this is not the case.
The Americans have invested enormous sums in education in the past three generations and they have found that some of their greatest hopes in social terms have not been achieved. The Russians made one of their biggest achievements in extending universal literacy right over that enormous country between about 1917 and the last war. That was a tremendous achievement. But they found at the end of that that some of their moral hopes—that is, the invention of the new Soviet man—and, even more practically, their academic hopes (the idea that they would produce infinite flows of great talent) were not realised.
Both the Americans and Russians have instituted safety nets, catchments, for the kinds of problems which the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, talked about; that is, the provision of really intelligent methods of coping with bright intellects.
1552
I stress the word "intellects". I, too, was going to raise the absolutely absurd distinction between giving satisfactory, high level treatment to musicians and dancers and not to mathematicians. My noble friend, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said that music and dancing can be detected very early. I assure him that mathematics can be detected much earlier. Anyone used to this game can detect mathematical talent in a child aged four.
There are things that education can do. One was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in a most impressive, authoritative speech. We could get people trained in some of the really basic kinds of engineering, of which we are so lamentably short. I will refer to that later when I come to the matter which I feel most strongly about. I do not feel as strongly as most people in this House on the general issue. I could not help thinking of Lord Melbourne instructing the young Queen Victoria:
"Ma'am, do not worry too much about education, I never do. I do not really believe in it. The Pagets have scarcely learned to read or write and they get on pretty well."
He followed on this valuable piece of Whiggish advice as follows:
"Do not try to do any good, and then you will not do any harm."
I must say that some of the speakers today have made me feel that we often, with the best of intentions, try to do good and may do great harm.
One of the inevitable practical consequences of our curious performances is that it is going to be appreciably harder for a finite number of underprivileged children to get the best education in England. That is a masterstroke of administrative politics. We could have learnt a lot about comprehensive education if we were not so insufferably parochial. Do not look upon this as a new idea. We look upon it as an adamic surprise, as though we thought of it; something borne from the sea. The Americans have been doing it since before 1900, and they know all about it.
If you talk to American educationalists, they usually say with pain: "Why should you make all our mistakes all over again? Why don't you learn from us the kinds of things to avoid?" I think they somewhat

1553
overstate their case for, like the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, I am prepared to accept the consensus, though with a good many doubts and with certain necessary reservations about amendments which must be made to this Bill. But if we had studied the American experience, which is perfectly reasonable and accessible, we should not have been so surprised at the troubles we are now walking into.
The basic unit of American education is the high school, which is what we call the comprehensive school. This stretches all over the country. It is usually very large, with well over a thousand students, and is presided over by someone called a Principal, who occupies his entire time, so far as I can see, on administrative work. They are less like schoolmasters than any group of academics I have ever met—quite naturally, because running these schools of 1,000 or 1,200 is very difficult.
I ought to say with complete honesty that some of these high schools are excellent, but usually in rural or small-town areas where the society is homogeneous, where there are not large differences in income and no ethnic differences, and where the whole community is ready to go every Saturday to see the school basketball match—which is usually dominated by gigantic young negroes of six foot six or slightly more. That is the typical, semi-rural American high school. I believe that we are probably already beginning to find the same thing. I would guess that in parts of Wales with a good respect for education, a homogeneous community, and without any large urban disturbances, we should probably have very satisfactory results from comprehensive schools, and I can think of other parts of rural England, such as Yorkshire, and so on—and in fact I have been to some of them.
Many of the speakers we have heard today have given the impression that they have never been to a comprehensive school in their lives. But some work well. These large schools in America are nearly always very good at games because a school of about a thousand obviously has a large pool to draw on and, as we know, a large pool of miscellaneous intellectual ability, with the result that you get a fairly unusual over-plus of athletic activity. They are very impressive. But, my Lords, remember that most people
1554
do not live in rural areas. They do not live in Carmarthenshire: they live in towns. And this remarkable discovery is one that the Americans have made to their cost. There are some comprehensive schools in towns to which l should not like to take some lady Members of this House on a dark night.
I do not know how many Members of this House have ever been to a comprehensive school in New York. By the standards of one or two that I have seen, William Tyndale was admirably disciplined, very decorous, and extremely given to the learned arts. They are really terrifying—I mean terrifying physically. I am not unusually cowardly, I think, but I have been glad to get out of them from time to time. This is an unfortunate concomitant of urban life.
Leave New York and go out perhaps some 10 or 12 miles to Pelham or Scarsdale, and then you will find high schools which draw on a fairly rich community, because the more prosperous people are moving out of towns, and moving increasingly further out of towns. So you get an acute social differentiation. The ghetto schools are ghetto schools. The middle classes are evading them—quite naturally. They can afford to, and Americans are mobile people anyway. They do not mind moving of house to go and live by a neighbourhood school. I am perfectly sure that we shall run into exactly the same experience; I cannot see any alternative to it. We shall not do it quite so willingly, because we are not so mobile physically. We certainly, in towns, find it harder to get our people to take "busing" as a reasonable way of getting schools roughly equalised in composition. I suspect that in England it will be far more difficult than in America, though it is difficult enough in America.
And, of course, let us not evade crude social conflicts. The conflicts are typically between the black community and the poor whites. This is the trouble in Boston. The Irish poor detest their children being moved to a largely black school, and the blacks are usually not excessively keen on their children being "bussed" to an Irish school. All those problems we are going to have, unless we say that we are not going to make any attempt to equalise the schools but just have strictly neighbourhood

1555
schools, in which case I cannot believe how anyone who has seen the facts can possibly say that this is going to be a marvellous social emollient, a method for really bringing two nations together.
On the other hand, as I said, I am prepared to accept the consensus, for I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that it is a consensus. I think that the Opposition are deceiving themselves if they think that this is a popular issue where the weight of opinion is on their side. I would guess that there are substantial numbers of people, where there are good grammar schools, who feel very strongly. But, although I hate to put my own estimate of a referendum very high, I would certainly expect that if this issue were to be put to a referendum it is one of the things in the Labour Party's programme which would be fairly popular, certainly more popular than not, and I think this we have to accept.
The reason, quite simply, is that everyone hates the 11-plus, and they do not hate it because it is a very bad discriminant. I think that here my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who is a very honest man, was being unconsciously disingenuous. The trouble with the 11-plus is that it is an extremely good discriminant and no one wants to know what predetermination is. None of us wants to know how our fate is settled quite early. We had a curious example in the course of this debate. Having heard how bad the 11-plus was as a selective process, we then heard almost in the next breath that the reason why we have to get rid of the grammar schools is that they have creamed off the talent. But they have creamed off the talent by the exact application of the 11-plus, and by no other method.
We must, I am sure, keep our intellectual candour in these matters. There have been examples on both sides. For instance, the Opposition view, that parents have had a great choice in the past which is being taken away from them, is absolute nonsense. Most people in this country have never had any choice whatever of what schools their children should go to, and unless we face ourselves with some pretence of intellectual probity we shall get nowhere.
Lord DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, before my noble
1556
friend leaves the 11-plus, he is far too intelligent not to remember the difference between statistical and personal decisions, and there is not the slightest doubt that any test, however crude, will produce a statistical result which is to some extent correct. What we object to about the 11-plus is two things: first, the pain it causes on the way; and, secondly, the mistakes it makes.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to accept the pain. The mistakes are less than you get by most statistical processes and the pain is why, on the whole, the general public wants comprehensive education, and why I have already said I accept that consensus, because there is a certain degree of human disapproval which no society accepts willingly, or ought to accept willingly, and there I am very clear. But what, then, is the likelihood? What kind of prophecy can one make? This Bill I am sure, though T hope with considerable amendment, will be passed. For five years, I think there will be a certain diminution of friction—if I may use a horrible phrase—because one strain will have been taken out of society.
In ten years I think there will be a resurgence of friction, which will come about because the abler parents will know that their children are not being as successful or as well taught as they should be. We know something about the records of comprehensive schools now. If you read the Oxford and Cambridge scholarship examination results, which are as objective as most things can reasonably be, or the results of degree examinations, you will find that comprehensive schools, considering the enormous amount of theoretical talent they draw, have a bad record. That record will look even worse in ten years for an obvious reason: because an increasing number of parents will send their children into independent schools. That is fixed. It is fixed because of a rather odd intervention. As most noble Lords probably know, we, together with all Western countries, have recently accepted the decision of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations that it is impossible to forbid people choosing private education for their children. This was done by all Western countries. It means that private education, so far as one can see, is there for good unless we

1557
deliberately become part of Eastern Europe. There is no getting away from this problem.
If that is true, then the private sector of education will have renewed stability. Traditionally, professional parents have been prepared to make enormous financial sacrifices for their children, and will continue to do so on a larger scale. On the other hand, the clever under-privileged children who used to go to Manchester Grammar School, Godolphin and Latymer, Leeds and Bristol grammar schools, will, according to Clause 5 no longer have the opportunity to do so. By this master stroke of administrative politics, the one method of slightly softening this clear opposition between professional people, who know their way about education and can afford to make a choice, and the rest of the population will be sharpened. Therefore one of the clear results in the next ten years will be an increase in proficiency on the part of our independent schools. Once they gave up training character they became extraordinarily good at training academic persons. On the other hand the comprehensive scene will be at a disadvantage unless you fudge the figures. As the figures are not in governmental control, they cannot be fudged. I regard this situation with gloom. I do not want to see this kind of polarisation. I think it is extremely stupid that this has been allowed to occur, and certainly has been allowed to be sharpened almost by deliberate act.
Yet I do not feel so tragically upset as I should have been three or four years ago when I thought that almost our entire education system would suffer this process of intellectual rundown; that is the general lack of energy and desire even for achievement in excellence in our society, which is already perceptible and which would make its way through the whole field of education. If one travels this world, the most depressing thing one finds about this country is that we will not think it is good to do something well. There are one or two things we are good at, like pure science, which can be ruined easily by the sort of academic decline which I think was threatened. I no longer think it is threatened, though I think some of the under-privileged will be kept out. I would regard it as extraordinarily foolish if we did not try to give social applause and recognition to our brighter people.
1558
As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the number is very small—a few thousand at the most at any time—but on the other hand they give purpose, drive, achievement and grace to society, and no good society can get on without them.
Also—this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill—there is an absolute necessity to get better at some of the practical arts of applied science. I believe that this is closely related, although I should not like to demonstrate why it should be, to intellectual achievements elsewhere. If we did not have good pure science we should have no chance of having good applied science. It is very curious that demand has absolutely no effect upon what people do at universities. We have been short of mechanical engineers ever since I had to deal with personnel problems in the war. We are very short of mechanical engineers now—desperately short. The fact that they are in demand and could be employed tomorrow does not prevent many young people who might become mechanical engineers from becoming sociologists, for whom there is no conceivable demand.
My Lords, that is my conclusion. I accept the consensus. I think that its consequences will not be in the least what are expected. On the whole, I believe that they will sharpen the tensions within society rather than soften them but that by luck which we do not deserve, by the curious formulation of human rights, we shall be partially saved.
3.36 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, it is always a disadvantage to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snow, because he speaks so very brilliantly that anybody who follows him looks even more inadequate than they actually are. There have been many distinguished academic speakers today but they are professionals, or suppliers. On the other hand, I am a consumer, since I have a large family.
I have one right to speak in this debate, in that I have a child in almost every sector of education. I have one child in the private sector and others in the State sector. Also I have a child at the Lycée, so the education of my family is almost an international experience. However, with all due respect to the academics, I feel

1559
that they tend to speak from considerable knowledge which perhaps isolates them from the nitty-gritty, day-to-day part of being the parents of children. Parents have to face the day-to-day problems, not the generalities. I must confess that when I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I felt that it was an extra "hard sell commercial" for comprehensives. As an advertisement, perhaps it might have been censured for total accuracy by the Advertising Standards Authority.
I have a child in a comprehensive school, and I know that there are many dedicated teachers who try extremely hard. I think that it is a good comprehensive. I am not saying anything against comprehensives, but I want to raise some of the problems which exist. My worry and sadness about the Bill is that by pushing the comprehensive system we are increasing the size of schools. I am afraid that the real point which comes out of size is that less individual attention is given to pupils and that the pupils themselves, especially those who are less articulate, often tend to express themselves in physical terms, which means violence. Hence my remarks are concerned with violence in schools, which worries me because I have met it. I welcome the fact that an inquiry is to be set up. I am sure that it will uncover many facts. Probably it will make recommendations which I hope will cure the situation. However, that is perhaps being over-optimistic; it takes a long time to sort out such situations.
Speaking about violence, the noble Lord, Lord Snow, mentioned the "blackboard jungle" in the schools of New York. I know just how tough these schools are. But, as we know, there is toughness in London schools. It is very sad, because, as a result of this violence, the ability of the pupils to learn is reduced. The things that happen can vary. Even girls can be bullied so much that they do not go to the lavatory during school time. It can reach a point where the pupils will not show their full ability because they may be bullied for doing so.
The violence can be very frightening. In one London comprehensive recently, it took seven police cars, 28 policemen, to break up a fight between rival factions.
1560
The police are sometimes criticised for moving in, but they have to move in in force to sort out the situation before anybody gets hurt. It is up to the teachers and everybody else to back the police on these occasions if they have to go in strong and hard to sort things out before anything really unpleasant happens. We no doubt all know about the incident which happened not far from here. We know that things can happen such as occurred in the case of the Sidole child who had a terrible death in the swimming pool. Actually, it was not in school but it was done by school children.
I should like to pick up the point so ably made by my noble friend Lord Elton, about the pastoral care that is needed. This was commented on by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who, though she did not like the word, "pastoral", agreed with the sentiment. But it is really pastoral care. Much of this care has to be given, or problems sorted out, by headmasters and headmistresses, and as we know these very able people are under vast pressures. In fact, it may be that there is a need for sharing some of this care between the social services and the teachers. There are areas perhaps which pose problems for the Teachers' Union. The problem of violence starts in the home and it has to be sorted out from there, perhaps on a half and half basis. This may come up out of the report. There is a need to encourage the pastoral care of children.
My noble friend Lady Elles has had to withdraw through back trouble but she wanted to make several points, one of which is of great importance; that is, that this Bill apparently defies Article 17 of the Convention of Human Rights, signed in Rome in November 1950. This point was brought to mind by the late Lord Feathers' Bill of Rights Discussion Paper. This gives me the opportunity—and I am sure I speak for other noble Lords—to say how much his death is our loss in this House. I should like to know how the framework for the development of educational co-operation in the community which was agreed by the Minister of Education in December of last year ties in with the Convention. I feel that it is not totally compatible.
Finally, as I said, I am saddened by this Bill and the attitude of intolerance shown

1561
by Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps it is unintentional. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, used a phrase about arrogance and haughtiness. The way the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, talked about the pockets of resistance seemed to indicate that these would be liquidated.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Reluctance.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I take his point, but perhaps it comes to the same thing and I am grateful that he highlights the point. If it is just reluctance, they still would be liquidated, and I feel that this is arrogant.
3.45 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech and also to say how pleasant it is on this occasion to speak in a debate in which my two sponsors, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, have also spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made the point that he is a practising father, but I think I am the only practising teacher so far who has spoken in the debate. A number of retired teachers have spoken, but I think I am the only one who day by day faces pupils in the lecture ball and classroom.
It seems to me that this Bill raises two major issues. The first, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, concerns the entire structure of the education system which, under the 1944 Act and preceding measures, is divided between central and local control. It is based upon a division of responsibility between central and local government and, so far as I could follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and other noble Lords opposite who have spoken on this subject, they made the point that the 1972 Local Government Act reinforced the autonomy of the local authorities. That is what it was intended to do, and presumably if the Scottish and Welsh devolution measures pass through Parliament and are followed by measures of devolution for the English regions, this also will reinforce the possibilities of differences between different parts of the kingdom and different parts of England
1562
in educational practice. I see that there is a very strong case to be answered in this regard.
The question it seems to raise is whether or not the balance between central authority and local authority is correctly drawn under our existing legislation and practice. My conclusion, after a good deal of thought about this, is that by and large probably the division is incorrect at the present time. It seems to me that on the whole the central Government intervene far too frequently in matters which are quite properly matters of local detail—differences between authorities may be irritating but they do not matter too much—and on certain central issues the central Government abdicate responsibility.
As your Lordships will know, there has recently been a devastating criticism by the OECD of educational planning in this country, and there is a Select Committee of another place at present examining that report. I shall be most interested to see what conclusion they come to, but I do not think it will be wholly to endorse the present pattern of central planning in education. This seems to me to be the heart of the Bill which is at present before your Lordships' House, because one has to ask whether comprehensive education is a national or a local issue. I find this an extraordinarily difficult matter upon which to make up my own mind, but I think that by and large my noble friend the Minister was correct in saying that it is a national issue. It has been before the electorate nationally at five or six General Elections and four of those Elections have produced Labour Governments. I should have thought on the whole the consensus had moved in favour of some form of eroding the division between the maintained and the secondary schools.
So there is the first point that I want to raise; namely, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is right in saying that this fundamental change introduced by the Bill in our practice of constitutional education is correct. On the whole, I think I would come down against the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and say that I should be in favour of this sort of issue being decided nationally. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that we urgently need a new major Education Act. The present Act is hopelessly out of date.

1563
That raises a second issue which I want to bring before your Lordships' House this afternoon; namely, the slow progress which has been made in the past 20 years or so towards a national secondary education system. I wish to refer to the several points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I am second to none in my admiration for the noble Viscount's two periods of office at the Department of Education and Science, which were quite the high points of postwar Secretaries of State and Ministers in the Department. If I venture to utter a word of criticism of his speech, it is not that I do not share your Lordships' tremendous admiration for the noble Viscount. But it seems to me, in the first place, it is not just a case that this Bill has introduced a whole series of new principles in the organisation of secondary education. A great deal of the trouble in the comprehensive schools has been due to indecision and slowness in settling this central issue of Governments of both Parties over a long period of time.
It is undoubtedly the case that, between 1945 and 1953, the whole armoury of the then Ministry of Education, building controls, were used to give permission for the closure of schools. The Shooters Hill case in 1953 springs to mind, when the London County Council, as it was at that time, wished to close down a small girls' grammar school in order to make sure that the Kidbrooke school, presided over by that very great headmistress, Miss Mary Green, should get off to a fair start, and permission to close the Shooters Hill School was refused by the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, at that time.
During this period, when the whole tide of opinion in favour of experiment and change in the secondary educational system was flowing, there is no doubt that central Government was adamant. They had been told by the psychologists before the war that the division, the sheep and the goats, the 20 per cent. into grammar schools and the 80 per cent, into secondary moderns, was correct, and they were not going to allow any authority, even an authority as experienced and as powerful as the London County Council, now the Inner London Education Authority, to spoil this pattern. Therefore,
1564
we must look back on the early period of the comprehensive schools as a period when an enormous opportunity was missed to do some of the experiments to find out some of the things which noble Lords opposite have been asking about this afternoon.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, very kindly referred to me. I authorised between 150 and 160 comprehensive schools, large ones. I am not aware, although my memory may be at fault, that I ever refused permission to any proposal from a local authority for a comprehensive school if it was shown that the catchment area for the children made it sensible to have one.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I absolutely take the point of the noble Viscount, because he is certainly younger than some of the other Ministers to whom I was referring. I was talking about the late 1940s and the early 1950s. By the late 1950s when there was an opportunity for experiment in the inner urban areas, which involved closing down the grammar schools, I think the propositions were not put up to the Minister because authorities were confident that they would be turned down.
Having criticised to some extent the Conservatives in this respect, I must in all honesty criticise the Labour Party for the great missed opportunity of the period from 1964 to 1967. I would have thought that the tide was then flowing strongly in the country in favour of comprehensive secondary education for the entire community, not just those parents whose children were in the maintained sector, but a large number of parents whose children were in independent schools. The Government never quite took on board the pressure of informed public opinion which was then flowing. It was a missed opportunity. We might have established at that time a national education system equivalent to the National Health Service instituted in 1946. Although there is criticism now of the reorganised National Health Service, there is not a single person who would wish to go back to the system prevailing before 1946 with respect to the hospital system. I cannot help feeling we might well, in this House today, be debating

1565
more constructively the future of the comprehensive schools if that opportunity had been seized at that time.
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the very serious problem of the neighbourhood school. I shall be coming on to that as the last point I wish to make this afternoon. But there is a certain irony which cannot be lost on a newcomer to this house. When I was first brought to this House, I read with great care an expert work by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, which pointed out that no fewer than 432 Members of this House come from one large comprehensive school up river, including the noble Lord who introduced this debate, and the noble Lord who opposed it. Of course, the Liberals, with their complete independence, went to the Eton of the North, Gordonstoun. It is quite clear that the opposition to the neighbourhood school has its limits, provided the area is posh enough.
I would make a more serious point, if I may, and it is this. I think people who have been concerned with the secondary schools ought frankly to admit—it is what the noble Lord, Lord Snow, mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord James, eloquently mentioned also—the growing sense of disillusion about the secondary education system. There is no doubt at all—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is a very old friend from my Oxford days, will also agree with this—that there are many areas of the country where the comprehensive schools are extremely popular. Oxfordshire is one; Cheshire is another area which I would refer to, both of them good solid Tory counties, so it is not a Party point. But there is very strong evidence, I should have thought, of disillusion among informed and concerned parents, especially parents of the professional classes, and also concern among working-class people of all kinds. I think that the central question one asks oneself about this is what is this sense of disillusion due to and will this Bill do anything to stop it?
My Lords, we are living through two simultaneous revolutions. One is a revolution in the structure of the education system of the secondary schools, which is what this Bill is largely directed to. You would not find a defender of the 11-plus. I think the noble Lord, Lord
1566
Snow, is absolutely correct. You would not find an intellectual defender of the 11-plus system. It is not defensible any longer. It is old-fashioned psychology.
On the other hand, we have also been living through a revolution of the curriculum and teaching style. My noble friend Lord Annan referred to William Tyndall, the difficulties of that school. We have
to face the fact that there is a substantial minority, a very vociferous, powerful, concerned minority of teachers, who have set about deliberately sabotaging the existing curriculum and teaching style, because they wish to bring about much more than a social revolution. Let us be frank: they wish to bring about "the revolution". Consequently, there are comprehensive schools, such as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to, where there is no doubt chaos is reigning. This is not an accident, in my view; it has been brought about by deliberate intervention of teachers who wished that to occur.
Of course, these two revolutions, the revolution in the structure, in the system, and in the contents of curricula, have, I think, got muddled up, necessarily muddled up in people's minds. So people attack the comprehensive school when really they are attacking something else. I am afraid I shall upset my noble friend the Minister by slightly criticising the Government in this respect. Frankly, I think this is an area where the central Government have failed to give the lead they ought to have done. This is why I so much hope that this Bill will be followed by a much more major Bill, which I hope will be an inter-Party Bill, on the question of where power and responsibility in the educational system should lie. At the moment the secondary system is in absolute chaos. It is in chaos in respect to curriculum; it is in chaos in respect to how to teach; it is in chaos in respect to examinations; it is in chaos in respect to the objectives which it is seeking to set itself for later employment.
Handing over these central issues to that extraordinarily ropey body, the Schools Council, is just not good enough. I often ask myself what the 3,000-odd public servants in the Department of Education and Science are doing with their time. We also urgently need—and here I so much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—some attempt to correlate

1567
what is going on in the secondary schools with the needs of industry, commerce and the professions for trained manpower. If the Swedes can do this through their Manpower Planning Board, if the French can do it, if attempts can be made throughout Europe to get this kind of system working, why on earth is it beyond the wit of our dear old friends in the Department of Education and Science? In other words, immediate reform of the secondary education system is needed.
We need to know what is the best curriculum for which children. We need to know what are the best teaching techniques, and this includes the whole problem of selection. I happen to be chairman of a committee of inquiry into the training of gifted musicians. So far as I can understand, the proportion of gifted musicians in the child population is one in 10,000. I am also reliably informed—I happen also to be chairman
of a committee on dance—that there is no such thing as a gifted dancer within the child population, certainly until the age of 13. What we have are ambitious mothers, which is not the same thing. The problem of how to deal with the gifted is, in my view, an infinitely more complex issue than we have yet thought.
I ask: is it beyond the wit of man to answer a few relatively simple questions? This is, after all, the nation which invented penicillin and we have an ally across the Atlantic who have a machine on Mars. Is it beyond the wit of man to discover at what age people should start learning French or what is the lowest IQ with which one can start reading at a given age? These seem to be very elementary questions, but of course we have no conceivable official answer to them. On the whole, therefore, I think that a large part of what the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Education and Science has called "the secret garden of the curriculum", which is in the control of the teachers, should not be; it should be in the control of the other place and this House, while a large part of what is now nominally within the control of this House and the other place should be handed over to the local authorities. Frankly, we have got the balance wrong and that is why, in supporting the Government on this issue, I hope that they will eventually
1568
feel strong enough to grasp the whole thicket of nettles.
4.2 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I intend to be brief and I wish to begin by quoting from paragraph 14 of DES Circular 2/75 which says:
"Special schools should be regarded as providing a highly specialised form of education designed to enable a handicapped child whenever possible to return to an ordinary school if this is considered beneficial".
It is only fair to say that the Department of Education has accepted the desirability of ordinary schools for many handicapped children, although it does not go so far as many voluntary organisations would wish. There is of course a reaction, partly from those most closely involved with special schools who possibly feel that what they are doing could not be done elsewhere, and this is quite understandable. I realise that problems would
be created by having handicapped children of all categories in comprehensive schools, not least access to these schools for the physically handicapped, but ideally they should be in small groups, integrated where possible, which would benefit both the handicapped and the normal children.
There will always be some children who have to be in special schools because of their disabilities, but at the moment many of those who board in special schools are a long way from their families and homes, which creates not only financial hardships but also a sense of isolation for all the family. Surely we can make sure, too, that at least any new schools have adequate access for the physically handicapped who, at the moment, are sometimes unable to attend ordinary schools merely because the architecture of local schools makes these inaccessible to or inconvenient for the use of handicapped children.
Many schools are used by the whole community and not just by teachers and pupils, and this makes it even more essential to have the plans right from the beginning. The arguments for educating handicapped children with non-handicapped children are, in my view, overwhelming and, fortunately, generally accepted, but unfortunately they are not accepted sufficiently in practice. It is far more difficult to integrate handicapped people into society when handicapped children and non-handicapped children

1569
are segregated and when teachers in ordinary schools are isolated, separated from teachers in special schools and sheltered from handicapped children.
Very few teachers in ordinary schools know anything at all about any form of handicap or anything about the problems of handicapped people. I think they should, not least because they are teaching society's future—hopefully—non-handicapped adults. Surely, the basic training of all teachers should include some instruction on handicap and should include exposure to a variety of severely handicapped adults who are successfully making their way in society. If the teachers remain unaware of handicapped people and their problems and achievements, we cannot expect the children they teach to grow up with any greater awareness. In this connection. I understand that a part of the curriculum for all children in Norway is instruction on the subject of handicap and I believe that this should be considered in the United Kingdom.
It is my belief that the performance of handicapped children, particularly at special schools, is adversely affected by under-expectation of their performance on the part of teachers. There are too many cases of the abilities of a handicapped child being recognised later than necessary and only as a result of undue effort by the handicapped child and its
parents, sometimes with the help of experts who are friends of the family and
not officially involved with the education or assessment of the child. This points to the need for regular assessment, occasionally with assessors who have not previously been involved with the particular child.
It also points to the need for a more rigorous curriculum and far greater emphasis, en the handicapped child's mastery of language and other basic skills, as well as on academic attainment. The handicapped young person will be disadvantaged later in life if his intellectual capacities are not very fully developed indeed. An unqualified handicapped person is doubly disadvantaged.
A handicapped child must be kept in touch with normal life to prepare him to lead a full and satisfying life in the community. With this Bill, we have a chance to take a good look at our basic priorities and to get those basic priorities
1570
right. The other place did not have the time to give to it, but we have. I should like to finish with the words with which the Association of Disabled Professionals ended their evidence to the Warnock Committee:
"We fervently believe that ordinary schools should be made special for handicapped children and that special schools should be made ordinary."
4.8 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill and to hope that this is almost the end of the argument about comprehensive education. I hope that we shall in the future see a secondary education system in this country based on the comprehensive principle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I should like to declare several interests. One is the fact that I am not an academic. Even my best friends would admit that, and if my enemies want to insult me they usually call me an academic.
I feel that, in this argument, there are not enough people practising what they preach. For myself, my daughter goes to a comprehensive school and my son will be following her. Those who are opposed to the Bill in this House today are in the main not people who have gone to grammar schools, to comprehensive schools or to secondary schools. Most of them have been to public schools. They are not people who practise what they preach about grammar schools. I should like to say that Eton has so far won the day on the Opposition Benches because we have had, and are to have, more speakers from Eton than any other public school.
One thing that concerns me is that the Department of Education is still allowing too much autonomy to local authorities on the question of secondary education. What has happened in my own County of Kent, which is dragging its feet on the question of comprehensive education, is an example. Too many of the authorities which are dragging their feet are introducing ramshackle schemes which are doing comprehensive education in this country more harm than good. By the systems being introduced too many comprehensive schools within the co-existence areas are being allowed to be creamed off.
What is the fact about parental choice? For most ordinary working-class people in

1571
this country there is very little parental choice. For a large section, or a majority, of the population choice is based on geographical location and financial location, in terms of how much parents are earning or in terms of where people stand in the social and financial scale. It has been shown in surveys since the end of the war that, in the main, working-class people are still getting the worst of the educational system, that they are not getting the places at the grammar schools, and that social standing still plays too large a part in this matter. A number of schools were surveyed by the NUT and the Campaign for Comprehensive Education, which published its Report in 1975. Because of the co-existence factor, because of some of these ramshackle schemes, headmasters in two-thirds of the schools surveyed
found that about 10 per cent. were creamed, and this was hindering the work they were trying to do and the academic range they were trying to cover.
There have been arguments about size, particularly in London. People have said that the comprehensive schools are too large. That is never an argument we hear about Eton, which has about 1,200 pupils. It is never an argument we hear about Manchester Grammar School, with 1,440 pupils. It is always an argument we hear about comprehensive schools and schools in working-class areas. Part of the problem is that those schools have not been given, by any Governments, the resources and facilities which schools such as Eton and Manchester Grammar are able to obtain.
This is where the problem arises. It is not just a question of what is happening in the comprehensive schools, in terms of violence or whatever matter people drag up—and I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, introduced a crime which had nothing to do with educational facility and which happened in a swimming bath. These are the kind of areas on which we must concentrate, and we must deal with some of the schools in our larger cities. London has a particular problem. As a former member of the LCC I must declare my interest. One of the problems we have had in London has been that of availability of sites. We were forced, through reasons of finance and due to lack of sites, to build larger schools than perhaps might be considered educationally
1572
suitable at present. But even here the situation is changing, and the average size of the comprehensive school in this country at present is about 950 pupils. There may be arguments about whether this is too large. But when noble Lords are using those arguments they ought to look at the schools shown in the Headmasters' Conference list, which in many cases are much larger—
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like to interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. There is the point that the majority of the schools to which the noble Lord is referring by contrast are boarding schools where the children are in the hands of the teachers, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is the first difference. The second difference is that they are allocated, in the case of Eton, to 26 individual houses which are
run on a domestic system. Therefore, in these respects, the element of size is quite different from that of the schools to which the noble Lord is referring. There are other points which the noble Lord has raised, but I think it would be discourteous to interrupt him any longer.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept that. The point has been made about the size of comprehensive schools. It would be very nice if comprehensive schools in London and in, say, my own daughter's school in Gravesend were able to have the class sizes of Eton and the sizes which boarding schools have. This is where a considerable problem arises. This is where we need resources in a particular area where they have difficulties which are not confined only to the schools. Children do not face difficulties merely in schools. In Lambeth and in Southwark, for example, they live in areas which have other problems, housing problems, with pressures on them not only at school but at home where they are unable to do homework, and are living in cramped conditions and in almost continuous noise. These are the things that I hope the Government will look at. It is really the resources that we are spending on education that concern us.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, called once more—as many politicians do when they do not know the answer; and I am not intending to be offensive—for another

1573
review. But the time for review is now over. I think that the consensus in this country, both political and educational, is in favour of comprehensive education. What we must ensure as a Government and as a nation is that, in fact, this argument is finished and that the people have chosen—and they have chosen in the last four Elections out of six—on the basis of the Labour Party's education policy that we must go forward with comprehensive education. I hope that this House today will support this Bill.
4.18 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I
find two things in which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend. One of them is that a great change could be made in education if one had vast, additional sums of money to spend on it. I would agree with that. The second
thing that I would agree with is that many things are changing. What I do not think this House realises is quite what size change is, in fact, occurring. I do not know what qualifies one to speak in this debate. My old friend Lord Davies of Leek said that it was holding a chalk and duster in one's hand. If that is the qualification, I am certainly qualified as I was holding a chalk and duster some eight days ago.
Looking at this Bill, I am afraid that I am opposed to it. I am opposed to it on principle. However, I am not
going to make a long speech just on why I am opposed to it. Such comments as have already been made should not be duplicated by me; I wish to make my own speech. Also, I am not going to go into a subject, which has been raised in other places and at other times, on just how small a mandate this Government had for putting forward this Bill. Admittedly their mandate in the other place is small; admittedly that majority is supported by what amounts to a small minority, of the people. But I am not going into that. There is something else happening which has not been referred to yet in this debate and which is beginning to make this Bill look as if in the future we shall consider it dictatorial, old-fashioned, extremely short lived in its effects and, worst of all, unkind to children.
This is the fact, that there is another great change following this Bill. The
1574
noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said he hoped that another Bill would follow this. It is my belief that this Bill is going to be the last one at all for the simple reason that next year, as we all know, devolution is coming upon us and there are going to be separate Parliaments for Wales and for Scotland and it is an absolute certainty that there would then, as well as a British Parliament, be an English Parliament. They would have certain subjects devolved to them. One of those inevitably must be education. It is the very basis of devolution that there is some difference
between an Englishman, Welshman and
a Scotsman—and this, above all lies in education. They are going to have their own education systems. This Bill has nothing to do with Scotland; it does not have very much to do with Wales. This is a Bill to compel local authorities in England to obey the orders of a British Government. That state of affairs is likely to change very soon.
We are already in this position: if this Bill had been put in front of Members of another place coming solely from England, it would not have reached this House. This Bill has actually been forced on the English by the Welsh and the Scots. As a Welshman, I am perfectly well aware that for many years the Welsh and Scots
have been ruling the English. My old friend Lord Davies of Leek is indeed one example of that. He sat in the Commons for many years—a Welshman as ever there was one—as a Member of an English constituency. The fact the constituency was called Leek is one of those wonderful coincidences; but in fact he was sitting for an English constituency. I do not object to that. If the English find that the Welsh and the Scots make good Members of Parliament to represent them, that is democratic. If they wish to vote for them all good luck to them. What is not democratic is that England should have voted on to its shoulders have voted on to its shoulders a Bill which the Members of Parliament representing English constituencies would never have supported.
We know that next year we have a great change coming; we know that education will be devolved on to the new Parliaments. When that happens each of these Parliaments will make up its own mind without reference to a British Parliament. We are going to see Scots education, Welsh education and English

1575
education and what will happen then is they will set up the education systems which they want. As a Welshman I know that the Welsh are very keen on education; I can imagine the Welsh spending a great deal of money on improving the Welsh education system. If they do so, we may well find parents getting a choice of education which they have never had simply by moving their domicile to some other part of Great Britain. We may find people moving to Wales so that their children can have a better education.
We may find the English making great efforts to improve their schools in order to keep up literally with the Jones's. This also is a possibility which is starting to come over the horizon. If it were put to them that a mixed system of comprehensive and grammar schools is better, we may find the English reverting to such a system. What is to stop them?—what would undoubtedly be a Conservative Government of England. We have all these possibilities, my Lords. The system is changing and this Bill is intended to force England to do something which it does not want to do.
At the moment, the local authorities have complete local options, except of course for certain pressures which the Government are putting on. Why cannot we leave that until after the major change has been made in the Government of Britain? Why cannot we leave it until the various parts of Britain are able to say what they want for themselves? Why must certain parts of Britain compel other parts to make a change? As I said, this appears dictatorial. It is a dictatorship by one part of Britain over another, in spite of the fact that the other parts of Britain wish to do otherwise than do what they are told to do.
It begins to look old-fashioned, because this is almost the last chance we shall have in Britain to control education. In future it will be done by the devolved Parliaments. If we make these changes now and compel these children to go to other schools, breaking up the schools we have now, and then go through devolution and have an English Parliament which believes in putting matters into reverse, it will be extremely bad luck for those children who are concerned.
1576
This whole business must be left—whether it is right or wrong is not in question—until after devolution, when those who wish to have things one way may have them and those who wish to have things another way may have them: and I intend throughout the various stages of the Bill to try to make sure that the changes we are about to make, whether right or wrong, will take place when a time comes that they can be democratically voted for by those whose children are affected in various parts of Britain. To carry out that purpose, I shall be putting down Amendments at suitable times during the passage of the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, coming in my familiar place at the end of a list of 24 speakers, I shall do my utmost to avoid repeating everything that has been said before. But if I were to achieve even half that, I should be nothing less than a genius—which I most certainly am not.
I want to begin by pointing out that one or two noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his opening speech, referred to "comprehensive education". I should like to emphasise that comprehensive education is not the same thing as education given in a comprehensive school. Comprehensive education can be given in various types of schools, and of course I am not saying that it is not given in comprehensive schools. But I should like to go on and say, as I have said before, that I am not against the comprehensive system. I think there are places where it can work very well indeed and can be quite desirable but, of course, what this Bill is doing is not so much establishing the comprehensive school as abolishing all selection based on ability or aptitude. That, I think, is a very great mistake. You must have selection, because no two children are exactly the same in their ability or aptitude.
What is more, I should like to point out that it has nothing whatsoever to do with class. I have taught for a good many years in both boys' and girls' schools, and some of the most stupid children I have ever had under my care have been those who came from what used to be popularly known as the "top

1577
drawer ", while some of the most highly intelligent were from very humble beginnings. One has only to look back at somebody like the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth to see that that is entirely possible.
Clause 1 makes two exceptions. The first and natural one is the mentally or physically handicapped, though I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Loudoun that physically handicapped children should be incorporated in ordinary schools as far as that is humanly possible. It is not always possible, I know, but it should he done as far as it can be done. But the other is:
"the provision of education in any school where arrangements for the admission of pupils to the school are based on selection wholly or mainly by reference to ability or aptitude for music or dancing."
Why only those two arts? They are not the only arts or professions which one should start at an early age. One should start mathematics, if one wants to achieve anything at it, very young. One should start the classics very young. One should start history very young. They are all things which one should start from one's earliest years if one is to achieve anything.
There is another point which I should like to raise. I thought that my noble friend Lord Annan, who I am sorry to see is no longer here, was completely wrong when he referred to this as two nations. If he means the very intelligent and the not so intelligent, I suppose one could say that that is so, because that is simply an act of nature and one will never eliminate it. But if he means a nation of the privileged class and the not so privileged class, that has now disappeared. The old idea of the class system of the Victorian era has now really gone, and I sometimes feel that members of the Labour Party are dwelling too much on the memory of those years—which certainly, I agree, is not a pleasant memory—which has now disappeared.
The last school at which I taught, a public school, had a very wide selection of social classes. We had one young Indian boy, a most charming young boy who, incidentally, was in the chapel choir. We also had the famous, or should I say infamous, Ojukwu who caused even more trouble in his native Nigeria than he did at school. Then we had one boy, the son of a local journalist, who had a Cockney
1578
accent which you could cut with a knife, but who got on like a house on fire with everybody else. There was no feeling of social division. That attitude has really disappeared now.
To return to the point of selection so far as ability is concerned, anybody who has taught must know that, with a class of very mixed ability, one must go at the pace of the slowest. One must teach something they will all understand, not just a few. The result of course is that those who are much more able do not get what they hope for. That is why you should separate the very intelligent from the not so intelligent. That does not mean that the not so intelligent are under-privileged. They may he extremely good at other things over which the intelligent ones are completely helpless. Who knows? They all have their individual gifts. But they should be separated according to their gift. That is why I feel that, although comprehensive schools in themselves may be good, the abolition of streaming inside them has been the greatest mistake.
Any system of education can be judged only by its results. I have a few statistics which I should like to read. These are based on the six years from 1968 to 1973 inclusive. They are O and A-level results showing at least three O-level passes, excluding O gained on A or CSE examinations. For the purpose of secondary
modern and grammar schools all these statistics are lumped together—that is to say, the old system as we knew it. The results are as follows. Secondary modern and grammar: 24·9 per cent., 25·6 per cent., 26·3 per cent., 26·7 per cent., 26·7 per cent., 44·75 per cent. Comprehensive: 20·6 per cent., 20·3 per cent., 21·4 per cent., 21·4 per cent., 21·9 per cent., 35·7 per cent. Direct grant: 85·9 per cent., 88·3 per cent., 87·2 per cent., 86·4 per cent., 87·27 per cent., 90·7 per cent. If those statistics prove anything they prove that the Government's decision to abolish the direct grant school was one of the most disastrous decisions in education that has ever been made in this country. I could go on with many more statistics. They all prove the same thing—that the comprehensives are on the whole just below the old system of grammar and secondary modern mixed together.

1579
What is the results of all this? There will be a generation of young people with only rudimentary knowledge of certain subjects; maths, science and geography, perhaps, and an almost total ignorance of English literature, history, the classics and modern languages. That seems to be the trend nowadays. Mention has been made of sixth form colleges. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme that sixth form colleges are not enough. We must start earlier than that. It is no use having a rudimentary education until you reach the sixth form and then suddenly being jumped into something which is entirely above your head.
I should like to mention Clause 2 of the Bill. This clause will give the powers of a dictator to the Secretary of State. The schools and the local education authorities seem to be given absolutely no say, despite the fact that they are in much closer touch with their problems. How on earth can an official at Westminster know what those problems are better than the people who are on the spot and doing the teaching? I believe that this is a fatal Bill. I suppose that it will go through, but I hope that by drastic Amendments we can make the Bill a little less bad than it is at present. I am very sorry, however, that it ever appeared.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, first I must apologise humbly to the House and to the two opening speakers for coming to this debate so late and missing so many of the speeches. My excuse is that I simply forgot that we were meeting at 11 a.m. I am mortified by this because the subject today is close to my heart. I have punished myself by slashing my notes savagely. I will make a few general points and be very brief; I hope only that I can make some sense out of them.
I support this Bill and the reorganisation of our secondary education on fully comprehensive lines because it looks to the future and not back at the past. I think that the Bill probably needs detailed examination, and I suggest that the Government should have a close look at the speech of my noble friend Lord Vaizey who gave us some concrete ideas on this.
1580
I begin by making the obvious reflection that education itself is an experience to be enjoyed—all of us seem to have forgotten that point—and that in many areas of Britain this experience is limited, so that the capacity for these children to enjoy it is stunted. Even today, having listened to half of the debate, it seems that many people have not accepted that the spread of academic achievement is wider than the spread of inherited ability. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will have a close look at the statistics relating to this fact.
An interesting feature in today's Guardian newspaper tells the success story of a research study into the progress in nine secondary modern schools in the Welsh valleys which teach the children of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. We
know that the main beneficiaries of the educational expansion of the 1960s have been the middle classes where there has been the fastest expansion in higher education.
Our debate today is between those who religiously believe in selective education and claim the right to be unequal—Mrs. Thatcher's famous slogan—and those of us who maintain that, in this technological age, both nationally and internationally a drive towards more equality in education is both socially relevant and economically pressing and urgent. But the tide against the selective system flowed from the revulsion against the 11-plus examination. This started the reorganisation on comprehensive lines.
By 1975 68 per cent. of secondary school pupils in England and Wales were in comprehensive schools and it was after 1974 that the Labour Government decided to develop a fully comprehensive system. The main research projects on education reached the conclusion that selection was not only unfair but also unreliable. For instance, in many cases for a child to be chosen for a grammar school depended not on ability, but on the geographical distribution of grammar schools. It was soon realised that equality of opportunity was non-existent in a tripartite system of secondary education where the grammar schools creamed off the top ability for themselves. Both the Crowther and Robbins Reports emphasised that it failed to exploit existing talent but what is absurd today is that the country's supply

1581
of skilled manpower should depend on the decisions of 14 year olds and on those who leave school at 16.
The Labour Government regard this as the most fundamental and urgent reason for an all-out drive for a fully comprehensive system of education. In industry the common, shared experience is desirable for a cohesive society. How can anyone today justify the fact that there are three times as many graduate teachers in grammar schools than in comprehensives? Up to now we have achieved a small academic elite. By the beginning of the 20th century we strove to do this. This helped our children, but there is no future for our grandchildren in keeping this small academic elite. Practically every distinguished education committee has exposed our shortcomings and shortsightedness. If we continue on selective lines we shall go into the 21st century as stragglers with the ideas of the 19th century.
The arguments against comprehensive schools are rather feeble. They leave out of account the paucity of the resources they have received. The question of resources is never mentioned when it is said that the comprehensive schools have not yet proved themselves. If we look at the state of the nation, we can see how the private sector of education and the universities have proved themselves. Let us see how they have proved themselves. Your Lordships do not have to take my point of view on this. One has simply to go back through the debates we have had on direct grant schools, universities and so on. As the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said, in the last few years we have had too many debates on various aspects of education. I recommend noble Lords to read the recent speeches contributed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, from Manchester University and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He made a brilliant speech on universities, and though he came down against the comprehensive system he dissected all the things that were wrong in our universities.
His ruthless analysis of the direction in which our graduates are going or not going, as the case may be, has shown that they have not produced the dynamism which we might expect from a privileged education. They have definitely not proved themselves. It is the universities,
1582
the private sector of education and the privileged sector of education which have not proved themselves today—not the comprehensives. The comprehensives have had neither the time nor the resources so far.
I do not say that our education system is the only reason for the state of the nation today, but I do say that the private sector of education has far less excuse than the less privileged educational institutions for not producing the goods"—the necessity for growth in highly skilled jobs. The country is a long way from tapping all the talent available as a result of present methods, and even the rapid expansion of higher education for the professional classes, with only 2 per cent. for the semi-skilled manual group, only shows up how the middle classes benefit without "delivering the goods". We are lost if today we do not accept that all children should have an equal opportunity of acquiring intelligence. That was why the Plowden Committee proposed more resources for deprived areas. Finally, my Lords, I fully support this Bill at this time as a step in the right direction to give us the quality of future manpower which we need in our country.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her to elucidate one remark she made just now. She spoke about giving all children an equal opportunity to acquire intelligence: surely intelligence is part of one's natural endowment, it is not something that one can acquire. I think she meant to refer to exploiting their intelligence.
Baroness GAITSKELL: No, my Lords, I used the word "intelligence", because I found it in various things I have read. If the noble Earl likes, we can use another word—"education", for instance. That is all right—anything goes.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I think it occurs in the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, to the Plowden Report. I think psychologists would agree that measured intelligence is about 80 per cent. acquired and 20 per cent. innate.
4.52 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Bill has some very serious implications which

1583
I think it is fair to claim have been recognised in the many speeches which have been made from all sides of the House. I should like to add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Blackburn for the maiden speech which he made to us today. I trust that I am not being too controversial when I express the hope that he will not have an opportunity to make a speech on a Bill of this nature in the near future, but I hope that we shall hear the right reverend Prelate speaking again on other subjects. Indeed it was right for us to have with us today the chairman of the Board of Education for the Church of England, and therefore I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be speaking on educational topics also in the reasonably near future.
At the end of what has been quite a long debate, perhaps it would be right to return to a consideration of what it is that the Bill provides. Clause I lays down a general principle that local education authorities shall provide secondary education only in comprehensive schools except for the teaching of music and dancing and also teaching handicapped pupils. In the House of Commons at quite an early stage in the Committee, the Government were forcefully reminded that this principle would make reorganisation schemes unworkable where what is called "banding" was in operation and the Bill was subsequently amended accordingly.
I hold no brief for the practice of banding, but I must point out that, undeterred by the possibility that this oversight might be only one example of the different views which people in a free society hold concerning education, the Bill then proceeds to make the comprehensive principle mandatory. The Secretary of State may demand further proposals in which he will be able to spell out what it is he actually does require, proposals of which he is the sole arbiter, proposals which have got to be implemented once they have been approved. So whatever view we may take of this provision, education up to the age of 18 is going to be at the dictate of central Government.
I would just venture to say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that it is this factor in the Bill which the Conservative Party oppose. On these Benches we share with the noble Lord his desire to provide
1584
equality of opportunity. But my noble friend Lord Eccles explained, with I thought incomparable clarity, why it is that this desire is probably not going to be met and, indeed, probably will be damaged by this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, with her experience of local government, showed that this Bill is a total reversal of the partnership between central and local government which was settled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and the late Mr. Chuter Ede in the Education Act 1944. Because the authors of that Act believed in the fundamental importance of family life, they provided the principle that, so far as possible, children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. The speech of my noble friend Lady Faithfull reminded us that the influence of the family remains as important today as it was over 30 years ago. Yet, of parents there is no mention whatsoever throughout the Bill.
My Lords, because the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and Mr. Chuter Ede recognised the potential tragedy of a child attending a school where he or she may be unhappy or may be unable to make progress, they placed the initiative of planning the pattern of schools upon those who are most closely concerned in the matter; namely, the local education authority, subject to the views of people of the locality and, of course, to the final decision of the Secretary of State. The absolute right to take that initiative and to express those views is now to be removed by this Bill. Because they recognised the contribution which so many different people and organisations have made to education over the years, the authors of the 1944 Act created a settlement under which everyone could plan and could work for the future. In a national service which is locally administered, what a wise policy that was.
I wonder whether it ever occurred to the Government when they were planning this Bill what would have been the consequences if the 1944 Act had probibited secondary education from being provided other than in grammar schools, secondary modern and technical schools. The path to reorganisation would have been blocked by Statute. But instead, with a free choice, gradually local education authori-

1585
ties began to introduce comprehensive schools. Some impetus for reorganisation in rural areas, about which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, spoke, and in new housing areas, was provided by the 1958 White Paper called Secondary Education For All. Having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, speak, it is fair to claim that in many authorities in the early 1950s and 1960s, the future of schools was not decided along Party political lines; until, exactly ten years ago, the Labour Party of the day issued Circular 10/66 which denied resources to school building projects unless they were intended for reorganisation. From that moment the Labour Party has moved with all the speed, and sometimes with all the passion, of the recently converted, and grammar, direct grant, independent and to some extent also voluntary schools are seen by the Government now not as partners within a settlement but as obstacles to a uniform system of education.
My Lords, a fortnight ago in a debate on a Motion of my noble friend Lord Carrington, repeatedly noble Lords expressed the view that for our country today the politics of confrontation are the politics of disaster. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, used a very similar expression in the speech he made today, when he said that the changes in education systems from one Government to another are no longer a practical proposition. The tragedy of this is that the Bill is going to set the partners in the educational service one against another, endlessly involved in litigation concerning what is supposed to be a service to children, astonishing, not only for that reason, but also because I should have thought the Secretary of State for Education and Science had rather lost his taste for litigation in the last few days.
Let us not be deluded about the sheer practical problems which this Bill is going to cause. Many noble Lords have pointed out that the financial impracticability at the present time of forcing 78 local education authorities to reorganise or to complete reorganisation is going to be considerable—except the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who spoke about a trifling few millions.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, if I may intervene, all I was trying to point
1586
out was that the Opposition, and sometimes our side of the House, continually mix up the economics of transference payments and capital; when you work it all out you are moving finance inside society, from one part of it to another, which is of use.
Lord BELSTEAD: Well, my Lords, we can discuss this at Committee stage. But I am talking about the permission which the Department of the Environment will give for loan sanction to local authorities, and this, it is quite clear from what Ministers have been saying recently—and I think Ministers are right to have taken this stand—is not going to be forthcoming.
In Committee, for this reason, we shall certainly wish to examine Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, which are demanding reorganisation proposals and then requiring them to be implemented within a five-year period. I hope noble Lords opposite will forgive me for saying that for a Government which appear to have considerable difficulty in seeing ahead financially five months, let alone five years, I really do think that the provisions of those three clauses are a bit overoptimistic. I hope that the Government are going to agree, when we come to the Committee stage, at least to a commonsense amendment to Clause 4, that the duty to implement proposals shall be matched by provision of the necessary finance.
I think the most worrying practical consequence of this Bill, a consequence on which Lord Eccles, Lord Alexander and Lord James have all put their fingers, will be the proliferation of weak sixth forms; indeed, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, a proliferation of schools which may be not able to cater for the various needs of children, whether they be gifted of whether they have needs of other kinds. When you find a pupil who is being educated in a school where possibly the right staff have not been attracted to the school, or it may be there is not sufficient pupil demand for the right course to be put on for this particular pupil, you can have the makings of a situation which, I am sure, having heard his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would be the first to call a tragedy. It was to prevent those circumstances that the Education Act 1944 laid the duty on parents to see that their children received suitable education, and a corresponding duty was

1587
laid, your Lordships will remember, upon local education authorities to provide the necessary schools. But not only does this Bill disregard those duties; it appears by its wording to prevent even sensible and compassionate placement of boys and girls according to their needs.
In Committee we shall certainly want to probe the meaning of Clause 1(1) which provides that schools shall not base their admissions wholly or partly upon selection. All I can say is that if the wording of that subsection means that it is going to deny to a young linguist or a young mathematician a course which cannot be provided in their own school; if it is going to prevent a nervous child from being given shelter in a smaller school; if that wording is going to bar the difficult or backward from the best course of teaching available in the locality; if, in short, the wording of this Bill is going to disregard the fact which my noble friend Lady Faithfull has brought home to us so strongly today, that children do have different needs and require different teaching and care, then I think this Bill is going to have a great deal to answer for. I am sure that all your Lordships would then want to band together to see that that particular part of the Bill was put into the correct shape.
Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, I must say that I am astonished that the Government can find it in themselves to introduce this legislation. I am not saying that the conclusions which the noble Lord reached would be universally acceptable. Indeed, it is precisely for that reason that, in an atmosphere of quiet, calm deliberation, we should all try to untangle the tight knot of financial stringency and difference of philosophical view in which the education service seems to be caught at the present time. Although in his very interesting speech, which we enormously enjoyed, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, explained that he was in support of the Bill, I do not think he will mind me saying that he was highly critical of some aspects of secondary education; aspects which need thought and agreement if they are to be put right. What worries me is that the Bill is giving no opportunity for thought or deliberation.
It was my noble friend Lord Elton who asked, reasonably enough, why an inquiry
1588
into comprehensive education could not have preceded legislation. My noble friend Lord Redesdale spoke about violence in schools. He spoke as a parent; somebody who hears about what is happening in the schools day after day from his own children. The only conclusion I can draw from what he said is that we need to know more about what is actually happening in our schools.
In another place the Government were pressed to agree to the setting of some national standards which would give at least an indication of the value of different methods, and an assessment of the needs of pupils. What has happened? The idea of an inquiry was rejected out of hand. The need for some national standards was rejected likewise. A debate in another place was remarkable only for revealing absolutely nothing about the assessment of performance unit, as it is called, which has been set up in the Department of Education and Science. The inquiry into school violence, to which my noble friend referred, will be extremely helpful, but it will come after and not before the passage of this legislation.
The truth is that the Government do not intend to weigh any evidence concerning the drafting of the Bill, and nowhere is this intention more apparent than in the attitude which the Bill takes to the voluntary schools. These are schools about which many of your Lordships have spoken today, being usually reasonably small schools with governing bodies, staff and parents united by their commitment to the objectives of their school, and drawing pupils from every sort of home. In this complicated world they are, surprisingly enough, exactly what they seem: really good schools whose staff, governors, parents and pupils support them enthusiastically. But now, for the first time ever, these schools will be forced, whether they wish it or whether they do not, to reorganise, and regardless of the trust deed under which the school may be operating. And for what reason? To join them up with another school, often some distance away—surely the most careworn form of reorganisation imaginable—or simply to change the name at the gate of the school, and form what the Inner London Education Authority has called mini-comprehensives (not at all the same thing as the careful planning of smaller schools) or simply to drive the

1589
schools into independence. Is the comprehensive principle really worth all this sacrifice?
There is a word of warning, if I may voice it, of a different nature regarding the whole trend of the Government's policy towards the voluntary schools. I understand that in November of last year the Schools Sub-Committee of the Inner London Education Authority recommended in evidence to the Taylor Committee on the Management and Governing of Schools that local education authorities should have greater control over admissions to voluntary schools. That was one recommendation. The second was that there should be a re-examination of the proportion of foundation to local education authority governors in voluntary schools. If the Taylor Committee were to adopt these two recommendations, it would appear that they would be recommendations very much in accord with Government policy as it is seen to be unfolding in this Bill.
If my diagnosis is correct, this must be of concern to the Churches. Today, it is a fact that we are a pluralistic society in which some people feel that a Christian religious education may not be appropriate for certain pupils, but to jump from that to the conclusion that parents should not be allowed to choose a Church school—which is an implication of the first recommendation—would be a direct breach of the Charter of Human Rights, about which my noble friend Lord Redesdale has spoken, and would be contrary to the whole intention of the 1944 settlement. Then, once pupils have been admitted, an implication of the second recommendation would be a threat to the Christian tradition of many voluntary schools.
I regret that I am no expert at all in this subject, but your Lordships will recall that, about six years ago, the Commission on Religious Education under the late Bishop of Durham, published a Report called The Fourth R. In an increasingly multi-racial society, the Durham Committee recognised that religious teaching must play a part in advancing the general education of all children and also that it should play its part in removing prejudices. But I am not aware that the Durham Report recommended that religious education should simply become an academic
1590
study of comparative religions. Indeed, in a phrase which received wide publicity at the time of publication, the Commission said that it was concerned that religious education should guide pupils towards a faith by which to live.
I very much fear that the attitude of the Government, as it is becoming increasingly evident in this Bill, may very well lead to consequences which the Government may not intend. Indeed, I have no direct reason to believe that they intend this at all and, apparently, they do not foresee it, but it is impossible to acquit Ministers of the intention to commit the damage which the Bill is doing. One only has to look at the text to see in Clause 5 the deliberate threat to the take-up of places at independent schools by local education authorities.
There must be two of your Lordships who know more about the need for boarding education than most other people in the country. They are my noble friend Lord Eccles, who received the Report of the Martin Commission in 1960, which recommended four categories of boarding need, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who chaired a further Working Party in 1965 which widened the categories somewhat—categories which, broadly speaking, have been accepted by local education authorities ever since whenever they were deciding whether to place a pupil in a boarding school. Both noble Lords have condemned Clause 5, as has the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, speaking from the Liberal Benches. And rightly so. With over 21,000 pupils placed at independent schools these days by local education authorities, under Government grants, some 12,000 of whom are boarders, not to mention pupils who are also—I am delighted to say—at the direct grant schools the intention of Clause 5, taken in conjunction with Clause 1, is clearly to prevent the placing of pupils at independent schools as soon as the Government can afford to do so.
In speaking about this, I have an interest, I am afraid, but may I just say this. I appreciate that some noble Lords opposite believe sincerely that any payment for education is something which ought to he brought to an end. But once again, have Ministers given any real thought to what lies at the end of the path which they appear to be so eager to tread? At the end of that path there will be the

1591
polarisation of attitudes which the noble Lord, Lord Snow, predicted and regretted. There will be found an educational monopoly which has no independent yardstick and little freedom for parents to choose how their children are to be brought up, less provision for different needs, and the denial, in a free society, of the right of people to associate together to provide an education independent of the State. If a fundamental right of that sort is to be denied, where will the power of Government to control our lives be ended?
Above all else, I believe that the thing which parents are really concerned about is what sort of education and care their children are having, quite regardless of what school their child may be at. The huge petition of over half a million signatures, which was collected in little more than two months, and presented to Parliament this month, protesting against the Bill, shows that the Government are not fulfilling that wish of parents. Indeed, by forcing local education authorities into a totally reorganised system, standards in comprehensive schools are going to be damaged—the very schools which this Bill is designed to promote.
Because of the use of the guillotine in another place the text of this Bill was not debated at all on Report in another place. If the Bill receives a Second Reading this afternoon, on these Benches we shall do everything possible in Committee to remove the worst features of this legislation, and in doing that I believe we shall be representing the true interests of parents, of children, and of the education service.
5.15 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think that by this time most noble Lords who have trains to catch have caught them, and dinner is not as near as it usually is when it comes to me to sum up at the end of a long debate. Therefore, perhaps your Lordships will let me take this matter a little easy and not rush it too much. It has been a fascinating debate. I was not looking forward to it, I confess, but I have found it extremely enjoyable and extremely instructive.
It is a curious thought that almost everybody who spoke was a direct
1592
example of the élite education we have been discussing. Whether this is a good or a bad thing I do not know, but there is no doubt that it is a fact. It is also a fact that it is perfectly clear that education is as imprecise an art as economics, or even more so, because the best brains in this Chamber have split about down the middle and one would think that they were talking about different Bills. So much for the expertness of the educationalist. We have to have it, but I think we must use it rather carefully.
The political content of our discussion has been agreeably light. I think that on the Front Benches on both sides we felt that we had to make one or two political remarks, but basically we are dealing with an extremely serious and an extremely difficult subject, about which there are no certainties of any kind, and anybody who thinks that there are is a fool. So it is very useful in an establishment like the House of Lords to have some of the best brains of our country talking about this. One thing I can assure your Lordships is that my Secretary of State will read, and read very carefully, everything that has been said today.
One noble Lord—it may have been my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend—said that it sounded as if very few noble Lords had been to any comprehensive schools. I have taken an interest in this subject only fairly recently, but I have been to several comprehensive schools, and I have been extraordinarily impressed. I may have been very lucky. They may have picked the good ones and kept me away from the had ones. But I can only tell your Lordships that I have seen a standard of dedication, of enthusiasm, of certainty that they are going along the right path, even though with great doubt as to which corner to turn here and which corner to turn there. I have been enormously impressed by what I have seen. But this has not come out in a single speech from the Opposition and I think that that is a pity.
The Opposition have repeatedly said that they are not against comprehensives. The extraordinary excitement which exists in comprehensives, the opportunity to develop something new, to do the best for the children, has not been referred to by anybody. The suggestion that—
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt for a moment? I paid tribute—not from the Front Bench, but from the Back Bench—to the work being done in the comprehensives, of which I have personal knowledge, and so we did in fact make reference to that matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am delighted to withdraw, my Lords. The suggestion made by a noble Lord who interrupted my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend, that Eton was quite different from a comprehensive because it had 26 houses (which is what it had in my day), misses the point that every comprehensive I have seen, or read about, has what they now call pastoral care in the most elaborate form. Either they have somebody in charge of each year horizontally, or somebody in charge vertically of each group, and this is done in the closest possible contact with the parents. The point I am trying to make—and I do not want to accuse the Opposition of overplaying their hand—is that I am talking about something in this Bill which is really good and which has the opportunity to be a great deal better.
Whether everything in the Bill is right, whether or not this little force should have been used at the end of the day, is something else. I require the House and the Press and everyone else to realise that we are not apologising for what is being done in the comprehensive movement; two-thirds of the children are being educated in that way. Admittedly, a number of comprehensives have not had a fair chance; have not yet had all the facilities in money or in other respects that they ought to have. In spite of all this, I think that what they are doing is quite remarkable. So much for that.
My Lords, my position has not changed from when I got up—it seems hours and hours ago—when I stated the Government position very clearly. I am going to state it again. We believe that selection at 11-plus is unnacceptable; we believe that the only solution to this is the comprehensive solution; we believe, regretfully, that the comprehensive solution is not possible if the grammar schools, however good, are maintained with the comprehensive schools and the best children creamed off—statistically, as I have said earlier, and not necessarily personally
1594
—to the grammar schools. We believe, therefore, that there has to be a change in the status of the grammar schools and we regret it if this means losing anything. We are aware that there may be angles in which it will cost something—certainly the mathematics point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, is one. But nothing that I have heard this afternoon has altered me in that conviction. This must go. There is not any other way of getting rid of it if we want the comprehensives to have the best possible chance.
My Lords, may I refer to the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. He has held a special place in our educational system for 30 years and he has made many notable contributions to the service which he has loved so well. I am only sorry that he had to wait for six years before making this one. I hope that it will not be so long again. What he said was really not something I want at this stage to take up because it was—and was meant to be—outside the confines of our particular discussion; but it is a statement of the greatest importance and of the greatest interest. I shall not have to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to read it; I know that he will. One or two other noble Lords echoed the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for a further over-all examination of the educational problem. I do not think that anybody is against it at this stage but there are certain things which my Government felt had to be done first. This was one of them.
There are certain detailed points which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others made. First was the question of costs. It is quite true that our resources are limited and that, as I said in opening, it must be quite a number of years before the reorganisation of the secondary schools can be wholly and satisfactorily completed. But even in our present stringent circumstances, we still have very large school building programmes—over £100 million both this year and next, even after taking account of the decisions on public expenditure announced last Monday in another place. And the White Paper on Public Expenditure published in February foreshadows an increase in current expenditure on secondary education more than enough to keep

1595
pace with rising numbers. We must, moreover, remember that at the end of this decade the numbers in our secondary schools will begin to fall and that some of the pressures to which the education service has been subjected ever since the war will be reduced.
Next the important question raised by several noble Lords of boarding and, in consequence of Clause 5. It is quite wrong to suppose that the effect of Clause 5 will be to prevent local authorities taking up places at independent hoarding schools and to compel them, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, suggested, to provide equivalent places in the maintained system. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an assurance in another place when moving the Second Reading of the Bill that where a local authority can satisfy him that it cannot provide education of a type suitable for the age, ability and aptitude of some pupils without taking up places outside the maintained system, he will of course give approval for such arrangements. He added that he expected this to occur where there was a short term lack of maintained school provision or—and here quote—"special needs such as boarding or denominational provision".
May I now turn to the fundamental issue of the balance of power between central and local government to which a number of references have been made. Section 1 of the great Butler Act lays on the Secretary of State the duty of promoting the education of the people of England and Wales and of securing:
"the effective execution by local authorities under his control and direction of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
This is the basis of the familiar phrase that education is a national service, locally administered. The question of what are the national and what are the local functions is always open. Somebody today said that everybody would agree that the school-leaving age should be a national one. We maintain that the type of school, whether a comprehensive or other system, will be a national one. Opponents think otherwise. That is the position.
In 1944 Parliament laid on the Minister the responsibility for seeing that national
1596
policies were executed by local authorities. Our policy of comprehensive secondary education can be fairly claimed to be a national policy, supported by many people of all Parties and none, and by what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, called a consensus of educational opinion. This Bill gives legislative form to that consensus. In doing so, it is fully within the spirit of the 1944 Act.
This brings me to the heart of the debate. Why should our secondary schools be organised on comprehensive lines? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and others, challenged us on this issue. They made points about the size of secondary schools, the organisation of sixth form teaching, parental choice, staffing, variety of schools and so on. I should like to try to answer these points by referring to the recent experience of two large local education authorities.
First the county of Hertfordshire. In 1967 Hertfordshire, under Conservative control, had approval from the then Secretary of State (my right honourable friend the present Foreign Secretary) to proposals for the establishment of comprehensive schools throughout its area. Nearly all these proposals have now been implemented and in some cases the new organisation has been in existence for several years. For the most part it takes the form of all-through 11–18 schools, each admitting about 150 pupils a year and giving, with a sixth form, a total of somewhere between 800–900 pupils. Much smaller than Eton or Manchester Grammar Schools, these 11–18 schools, developed from former grammar or secondary modern schools, are from all accounts providing a varied and successful system of secondary education. There is a wide measure of parental choice between the schools and a wide measure of pupil choice within the schools as to the courses that they may take. The number of choice of school complaints reaching my Department is negligible.
My second example is the city of Leeds. In 1971 the right honourable lady, the present Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Education, approved proposals for the complete reorganisation of the county primary and secondary schools in Leeds which had been submitted to her by a Labour-controlled local

1597
authority. It is early days yet but the signs are that there, too, pupils have wide choices and are finding the new system attractive. Also, there is no shortage of teachers for jobs in this largely industrial city.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that comparison, could he illuminate one point for us? In Hertfordshire, is the choice between the schools in no way related to ability and aptitude, and will it therefore be totally unaffected by this Bill?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think I shall have to write to the noble Lord. My understanding is "Yes", but I should like to check it.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is a matter of substance and one that perhaps we might return to on Committee stage, but I think it ought to go on the Record.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Certainly, my Lords. Government policy, confirmed more than once by the electorate and in another place, is to ensure that the benefits comprehensive education has already brought to the majority of our children in most parts of the country—and that is two-thirds of them, let us never forget—are extended still more widely. This is a policy to which we are committed, and which we regard as a necessary step forward in what Section 1 of the 1944 Act called:
"the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
I should like, if I may, to make one or two comments on what speakers have said, as we are not in the usual rush and I think it would be acceptable to do so. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, surprised me very much by saying that abolishing all selection based on ability or aptitude was a bad thing. But there has never been the faintest suggestion of doing so. Every comprehensive school has some selection going on within it. The one I saw the other day teaches mixed ability classes for three years, streams them into A, B and C for the fourth year, and in the fifth year sets them in different subjects according to their ability. The idea that not selecting at 11-plus means not selecting at all is
1598
repeated, sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously, the whole time. I must confess that until I began looking into these things that is what I thought myself, but the opposite is the case. There are tremendous differences between the comprehensive schools, which is why I must object to one of my noble opponents who said that we should have a rigid uniformity. They could hardly be more different. There are different ways of doing it. Some have more selection within them than others, but basically there is invariably selection of some kind, I think I am right in saying.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, made some remarks, which I found very sympathetic, about handicapped children. I will not say anything more about this at present because I am not quite sure how this will fit in with the detailed application, but I have great sympathy for what she said. My noble friend Lord Murray was quite right in saying that we have pastoral care in comprehensive schools which is quite as good as anything that goes on at Eton. He is also right in saying that 950 is the average size of current comprehensive schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about violence. Of course, we are interested in that: it is a terryfing thing. It has nothing whatever to do with the comprehensiveness of schools but with the poor conditions of the area. I think we should all agree on that. You do not get it in grammar schools so much, because people are taken away from the rough area. I met a man the other day who said that his son was at a comprehensive school in the North-West and that he was looking for a square violin case. When I asked him why, he said it was because the boy is apt to get ragged if he goes to a comprehensive with an ordinary violin case. That is rather a grievous thought, but that is not because it is a comprehensive but because over the last 20 years it has not had the cream of the more intelligent to make it into something rather better. At any rate, that is what I think.
We welcome my noble friend Lord Vaizey as a contributor to these topics. He is an asset to this House, which is a great pleasure to us. On the whole, he came down fairly strongly on our side, with some very telling comments which

1599
will have to he looked at very closely. The last point he made, which I thought was very important, as I think most people would agree, was about the need to coordinate education with the need for trained manpower. There seems to be far too little done about this, and it is something which my right honourable friend is certainly having a look at. I do not altogether agree with him about ambitious mothers. I am told the evidence is that if you are going to be a successful dancer you must start before seven, mother or no mother.
Perhaps the most serious question was asked me by the noble Lord, Lord James, about mathematics, and I have a fairly long reply which I should like to give him. He suggested that in certain comprehensive schools such pupils would be so few that they would not be adequately catered for. I want to question all the noble Lord's presuppositions. We have plenty of time. First, as regards the best way of meeting the needs of mathematical high fliers, when the Bill was under consideration in another place my honourable friend Dr. Marshall, himself a mathematician of the highest calibre, argued that it was wrong to suppose that the ablest mathematicians should receive a segregated education. Their skills, and equally, if not more important, their ability to apply those skills, did not benefit from such treatment.
I certainly remember that by far the ablest mathematician who was at school with me, Payne, K.S., was treated as an absolutely ordinary chap. He only had to have separate papers on mathematics sent in from outside, and I should think this could be done somewhere else. His general education did not seem to suffer from not being taken away and treated differently. That is not to say that high fliers do not need to be recognised and encouraged, but there is no need to ensure that they will be left in isolation, one or two in each sixth form.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek spoke of one solution—the sixth form college—which is adopted in an increasing number of areas, and which enables most efficient teaching by drawing together pupils of all interests and abilities from a wide area. That system has its advocates and it also has its critics. It may not be
1600
right for every area. Where a local authority prefers the all-through school, as in inner London, and where such schools are small, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, before approving such a scheme, look for evidence of co-operative arrangements between schools to ensure, in particular, that the less popular A level subjects would be provided for the pupils in an area, even if this meant some movement of staff or pupils—not an unknown expedient, even in grammar schools, where pupils from a girls' school have been known to study subjects such as Greek at the local boys' school, as my daughter did once. Such a flexible approach, with co-operation between schools at this level, would certainly not be outlawed by the Bill.
I cannot, of course, give an assurance that every child in every school could study every subject to every level, and that the needs of every tiny minority would be perfectly met. I wonder whether in that great school, that very large 1,400-place school, of which the noble Lord was once High Master, it was possible for any pupil to take absolutely any A-level or combination of A-levels. I assure him, however, that we fully recognise the importance of subjects such as mathematics, and I do not believe that any local education authority would put forward a scheme which failed to cater effectively for A-level students in such subjects, nor would my right honourable friend give his approval if they did. We do not underestimate the importance of the point which the noble Lord raised.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could tell us what scheme the ILEA put forward when it proposed its reorganisation for the Godolphin and Latymer School. What scheme did it put forward for the training of able mathematicians?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about that. It is not up my sleeve. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, depressed me rather by speculating about the future on evidence which I thought was insufficient. He may be right in saying that everything is going to get worse and private education will gradually take over, but there is absolutely no evidence for his statement. It may be

1601
right and it may not. Although I enjoyed his speech, as I always do, I will not reply to that part.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek and his musical codences kept us interested. The best comment he made was that two heads are thicker than one. The speech of my noble friend Lord Annan was remarkable. With him, I believe in the reality of the two nations as seen in our educational system. Certainly, it is nothing like it was 15 to 20 years ago, but there is no doubt that it exists. You have only to go among people who are going to secondary moderns, when their children have failed for a grammar place, to find that 80 per cent. are those from not necessarily rich but highly educated parents, while those who go to secondary schools are from less educated parents. They may be rich and masters of the local hunt, but their conversations at dinner are below the level expected of grammar school types. I believe there is a real perpetuation here of what we all want to be rid of; namely, the remaining class system in this country.
I do not want to make a political point, but you have only to talk to any foreigner to hear, "It's a lovely place but I find the class system very odd". And it is odd. It is strong, with perhaps fewer sanctions than previously, but it exists as much as ever and we must have a shot at getting rid of it. This is one of my motives, and one of the motives of my Party, in dealing with the problem.
My noble friend Lady Wootton was bold enough to correct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. When I told him he said he would not even look at the correction as it was bound to he wrong. She referred also to the question of uniformity, which I mentioned earlier. It is important that we should make perfectly clear that, with the number of different local authorities and the number of different people running them, uniformity is not something that this Bill will produce.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has written to say that he must leave. His arguments are always interesting. I would rather have him on my side than against, but I would rather have him against me than many others who deal so much less agreeably with the subject. My noble
1602
friend Lady Bacon was in the seat at the crucial time seven to eight years ago. I found her speech particularly interesting, especially her remark that since 1967 to 1970 the pressure for reorganising these new comprehensive schools came as much from Tory and independent councils as from Labour councils. I think one way or another we have slipped into political controversy over matters which should not be controversial.
I regarded the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, as a supporter, though rather a lukewarm one. I was interested in what he had to say. I hope what I said about Clause 5 is some solace to him. Lastly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made a splendid maiden speech. Having said in the speech how happy we were with the attitude which the Church has taken, and the way we had been able to work with them, it was nice to have this confirmed in a splendidly non-controversial way. We look forward to hearing him again before long. May I end this debate by saying I had considerable doubts about the Bill before studying it. But the longer and the more thoroughly I have examined it the more convinced I have become as to its rightness and its necessity. Education is an art, not a science, so no proofs present themselves. We have to make up our minds on as impartial a survey of the facts as we can manage. I do not think that it is wrong for parents to try to get the best education for their children and it is a view, although I think a mistaken one, that "my children will do better if they are separated from the common run and given special treatment".
I believe that this view is mistaken for two reasons. First, I think that it is a mistake to put off for too long meeting the real world which consists of many children brought up in widely varying conditions, many depressed and many very difficult. I think that a bright child will develop in a more balanced way if it is confronted early with the problems of the world he lives in.
Secondly, I think it is mistaken because the education in the top flight comprehensives is, in my opinion and in the opinion of a good many other people, showing itself to be every bit as good as the education in the best grammar schools.

1603
The world of the comprehensives is seething with excitement, with argument, with experiment, with determination to improve. Ten years will see the ordinary, middle-level school improved to the standard of the best. We shall have an educational system which takes responsibility for and gives equal attention to all our children, spending no less time and trouble on the backward, on the academically uninterested, as on the scholarship type, yet giving to the latter the best intellectual education with a much wider social understanding.
My Lords, I believe that the comprehensive experiment is the most exciting educational innovation of our day. It is visibly succeeding—succeeding under our eyes—and it will be a great tragedy if the Tory Party, whose educational record is distinguished by the 1944 Act, feels unable to throw its whole weight behind this dynamic and daily more successful movement.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.47 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 1976,

Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act 1976,

Protection of Birds (Amendment) Act 1976,

Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976,

River Medway (Flood Relief) Act 1976,

Suffolk Coastal District Council Act 1976,

Yorkshire Water Authority (River Derwent) Act 1976.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (BREAD) ORDER 1976
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (TEA) ORDER 1976
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (POTATOES) (EXEMPTION) ORDER 1976
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (FLOUR AND OAT PRODUCTS) (EXEMPTION) ORDER 1976
5.48 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move:
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976, laid before the House on 19th July, be approved:
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Tea) Order 1976, laid before the House on 19th July, be approved;
That the draft Weights and Measures (Potatoes) (Exemption) Order 1976, laid before the House on 19th July, be approved;
That the draft Weights and Measures (Flour and Oat Products) (Exemption) Order 1976, laid before the House on 19th July, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I beg to move en bloc the four Weights and Measures Orders standing in my name. As the Weights and Measures, et cetera (No. 2) Bill has so recently completed its passage through this House, providing an opportunity for Members to debate the issue in some depth, I feel sure that noble Lords will not wish to re-embark this afternoon on matters of principle. None of the orders now before the House raises new issues. They are all in line with the policy of successive Governments and of industry to move progressively towards the adoption of the metric system, a policy which the House has approved.
Before dealing with the orders themselves, I should first like to refer to an obligation which will arise on 21st April 1978 under the Units of Measurements Directive. From that point we shall not be able to discriminate against metric units of measurement. In practical terms,

1605
this means goods made or packed in metric units. It is therefore essential for us to have made it permissible by then for all goods which at present may only be pre-packed in prescribed Imperial quantities to be pre-packed also in metric units. Your Lordships will see from the proposed effective dates on two of the orders that we shall only just be meeting that deadline.
The orders on bread and tea are metrication orders containing provisions with which noble Lords will already be quite familiar. The order on bread will enable a simple conversion to be made from the present l4oz. loaf—the one we normally refer to as "small"—to 400 grammes and the 28oz. or "large" loaf to 800 grammes. The difference is an extra 4 grammes and 8 grammes respectively—a rise of just 1 per cent. The Government, supported by industry and consumers, consider this "soft" conversion preferable to adopting round metric figures of 500 grammes and 1 kilogramme. We do so for two reasons. First, we are dealing with a commodity produced almost exclusively to cater for British tastes and whose sales are accordingly restricted to the home market. Secondly, the conversion to the larger sizes would cost the baking industry an inordinate amount of money which, added to the cost of loaves 26 per cent. larger than the present ones, would mean an unjustifiable rise in price. The order on tea is similar to most of the metrication orders the House has already approved in that the metric quantities to be permitted are based on the "tripartite" range agreed in 1969 between the United Kingdom, Germany and France for use wherever practicable. The ¼lb. and ½lb. packets will become 125 grammes and 250 grammes respectively, an increase in size of about 10 per cent. The order makes it clear, which the Act at present does not, that tea in tea bags is covered by the same provisions.
The two orders on flour and oat products and on potatoes are designed to enable industry to metricate large packs. Both are to come into operation in August this year. At present these products may be prepacked in quantities above 1½lb. in multiples of 1lb. Parliament has already approved comprehensive orders metricating flour and flour products which come into operation in 1977.
1606
The operative dates of those orders were set in accordance with the wishes of industry—who unfortunately overlooked the fact that their large wholesale packs, which they planned to metricate this year, were also sometimes sold by retail. In particular the 70 lb. pack of high extraction flour, which is to be converted to 32 kilogrammes, is bought by immigrants for making chupattis. The exemption order has the effect of advancing the operative date of certain provisions included in the orders already made. The Department is not yet in a position to lay a comprehensive order on potatoes.
However, as agriculture is going metric this year and as the industry wishes to be able to put up this year's main crop of potatoes in 25 kilogramme packs, which will be significant in both the wholesale and retail markets, we must make such packs lawful. Informal consultations will continue with a view to laying before the House at a later date a comprehensive order on potatoes which will be compatible with the exemption order. The EEC has not yet adopted any legislation on the products covered by these four orders. Draft Directives exist on wheat and rye flour and on bread; tea and oat products are likely to be included in a draft optional directive which will prescribe standard quantities for certain prepacked products. The provisions in the order now before the House are compatible with the EEC' proposals as they stand, although we may have to amplify the provisions for bread if and when that Directive is adopted.
We are anxious to see a smooth and efficient transition to metric in each case. As I have explained, industry is ready to go on flour, oats and potatoes so those conversions should not take long. The baking industry expects to convert completely to the new size loaves over one week-end once all bakeries have had their weighing machines modified. The precise date will be a matter for further discussion between the Department and industry.
Things are not so simple with tea. We are allowing the best part of two years for the machinery manufacturer—there is only one in the country making these machines—to complete all the necessary preparatory work before the order comes into operation. But the conversion is likely to take as much as five years to

1607
complete after that. We shall be keeping a close watch on the progress of this conversion with a view to deciding what further measures, if any, are necessary to protect the consumer. My Lords, it will, I think, be clear that we could not in this case seek an early cut-off date for the use of imperial measures which the powers under the Weights and Measures etc. (No. 2) Bill would enable us to do. Consumers are therefore likely to see imperially-marked packets of tea for some time to come.
As the 1975 Marking Regulations come into effect for each of these products they will be required to be dual marked in both metric and imperial and the metric packs will have to be marked with the words METRIC PACK in capital letters. This will not apply to bread as it is not weight marked, which is why we want to ensure that there is a quick conversion over one week-end.
And now a word or two on prices. Although the price of new packs of flour, oats and potatoes must reflect the actual amounts in them, the unit prices of these goods—the price per pound or kilogram—will not be affected. I should perhaps mention with regard to flour—but this is in no way connected with metrication—that rising wheat prices will soon have to be reflected in higher prices for bulk flour which will in turn be reflected in the price of flour in the shops. This has already received some publicity in the media. But as I say, this does not arise out of the proposals which we are now considering.
As to bread, the new metric loaves when they appear in 1978, will, initially at least, cost the same as their imperial predecessors, the cost of the 1 per cent. extra dough being absorbed by the industry. In due course we can expect, and it would only be fair, that the industry will include the total cost of making the new loaves in any application they may decide to make for a rise in price.
Finally, as to tea: as with the other products the prices of the new packs of tea will have to reflect the quantity in them. Tea is the only commodity in these orders for which there are significant conversion costs. Even so, when related to the turnover of the industry they are
1608
comparatively small and spread over several years, and therefore they are unlikely to have a tangible effect on the retail price per packet. Proposals in these orders have been widely accepted and welcomed by industry, consumers, enforcement authorities and the distributive trades. I therefore have confidence in commending them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, as always we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for giving us such a detailed and very clear explanation of these four orders. Simple as they are, it obviously involves quite a lot of detail. I will be very brief because in fact, on these Benches we welcome all four orders.
My Lords, I was interested in the question of bread. I had not realised that it was not weight marked. It had not occurred to me. I appreciated that the 400 gramme size, and the 800, would comply with the 14-oz. and 28-oz., but I was not aware of that one point, and take the explanation of the noble Lord. We also welcome this because it will not mean any re-equipping of the bakeries, with only 1 per cent. extra dough. January 1978 is a sensible date, because it gives enough time, and will give a chance of integrating the EEC regulations.
On the question of tea, we welcome this order. The date gives the industry time to make the conversions, which will be expensive and a lengthy business for the packers. With regard to potatoes, the industry welcomes this order. This is happening almost immediately. I know they welcome it because they have been waiting to get on with printing packs. Obviously it is very sensible to have left out the prepack, because this will require a fair amount of further discussion before that particular problem can be sorted out. But the packs that are covered obviously can be put in hand straight away.
On the question of flour, the milling industry have co-operated fully on this, and have always had a target date of 2nd August, so this presents no problem. As for the others, we welcome the orders and hope to see them through. As we are talking about weights and measures, it would be nice on this occasion not to have another Second Reading debate.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, he will not have another Second Reading debate, but the Minister will be disappointed if I do not say something. It is always interesting to be the odd person out. Since the industry welcomes it, and all the other consumers welcome it, everybody welcomes it, I can perhaps ask one or two questions, to which I am sure the Minister will have the answer.
My Lords, in the first place, there is a difference in the cut-off dates, the point at which the orders come into operation, as the Minister explained. I am not quite clear why potatoes seem to have been chosen to be first, since the noble Lord made the point that bread was restricted to the home market, which is reassuring, because I am still waiting to receive the information for which I asked during the passage of the Bill, to know which foods we actually export. I have always understood we were an importing country in relation to food. Now we have been told categorically that we do not export bread, which is restricted to the home market, yet potatoes are to be dealt with before this, so I assume that we have so many potatoes that we can export them. This may or may not be good news. I would just like to know, appropos the price, bread is a commodity covered by the price freeze, as the Minister will know. There has to be one loaf held to a certain price.
I assume this arrangement will continue because otherwise there will be a sudden increase which the consumers will un-doubtedly associate, whichever way we put it, with the metric pack. I still feel that this is something done merely to be in line with the EEC. I do not think it makes the slightest improvement in the shopping facilities of the British housewife. However, I recognise that I am a voice crying in the wilderness, which does not bother me, and I will go on doing it at each introduction of each stage of metrication.
6.5 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend behind me for their speeches, one of welcome
1610
and one of doubt. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I need say no more than that he, at each point I think, reinforced the case which I was endeavouring to put forward in my speech, and I am glad that was so.
I should have been a little surprised and indeed disappointed if my noble friend had not engaged in discussion on these matters, because I recognise her deep interest in them. She displayed that when we were dealing with the Weights and Measures Bill recently. I hope I can explain the one or two points that she has asked about. She asks why the date in relation to potatoes is so much earlier than that relating to bread and tea. The point here is that the Order dealing with potatoes does a different thing from those orders dealing with tea and flour. The metrication orders in relation to potatoes have already been passed by Parliament, and it is a question of the date at which this comes into operation.
As I attempted to explain, the industry is anxious this year, indeed two days from now, lawfully to be able to market metric packs in the larger quantities, whereas the order that was passed would prevent them from doing this until, I think, 11 months' time. So we are needing to take that earlier date in relation to potatoes for that reason, and something similar applies in the case of flour.
On the point about price, I explained earlier that these metrication orders in themselves have no effect on prices. When my noble friend asks about bread prices under the present arrangements for fixing prices through recommendations from the Price Commission and so on, I can assure her that this order has no effect on those arrangements. Of course, prices will increase, if subsidies are withdrawn, in accordance with market conditions after application to the Price Commission and so on. That is a different matter. But in relation to what we are considering this evening there is no effect upon the prices.
Her final point was that this is simply to bring us into line with the EEC. Well, we do, of course, because we are members of the EEC, need to ensure that any legislation that we pass is in conformity with our obligations to the EEC. But if she is suggesting that our programme of metrication is solely in order to conform

1611
with the EEC, then, as I said when we were debating the Bill recently before the House, that is not so. I believe that there is a case for metrication quite apart from our membership of the EEC, and we would have gone ahead with it irrespective of our membership. But since we are members, and since we have a programme of metrication, then, of course, we do have to make sure that both sets of legislation are in conformity one with another. My Lords, with those explanations, which I hope are adequate, I beg to commend the four orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I, on behalf of my noble friends, wish all noble Lords a pleasant and restful Recess.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, whether here in spirit or in body, reciprocate and wish all noble Lords opposite a good holiday, considering that we are coming back in late September for a very hard Session.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on Re-commitment) without Amendment.
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TREASURY PAYMENTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: TREASURY PAYMENTS
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES
  HIGHWAY INQUIRIES
  CHURCHES: STATE AID
  CHURCHES: STATE AID
  THE GILBERT ISLANDS
  THE GILBERT ISLANDS
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER
  EEC INVESTMENT STATISTICS
  EEC INVESTMENT STATISTICS
  PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: EEC PROPOSALS
  PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: EEC PROPOSALS
  BAIL INFORMATION CENTRE
  BAIL INFORMATION CENTRE
  BRITISH CALEDONIAN AIRWAYS
  BRITISH CALEDONIAN AIRWAYS
  UNEMPLOYMENT: EEC ASSISTANCE
  UNEMPLOYMENT: EEC ASSISTANCE
  ARTS AND SCIENCE COUNCILS: MEMBERS' EXPENSES
  ARTS AND SCIENCE COUNCILS: MEMBERS' EXPENSES
  RESIDENTS' PARKING PLACES
  RESIDENTS' PARKING PLACES
  CALEDONIAN AIRWAYS AND BERMUDA AGREEMENT
  CALEDONIAN AIRWAYS AND BERMUDA AGREEMENT
  COUNTRYSIDE POLICY
  COUNTRYSIDE POLICY
  PROBATION SERVICE STRENGTH
  PROBATION SERVICE STRENGTH
  SMALL UNDERTAKINGS: EEC ASSISTANCE
  SMALL UNDERTAKINGS: EEC ASSISTANCE