Sitting of 8 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time upon Thursday next.
NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [Lords].
Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading Read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time upon Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Literacy (Bullock Report)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of the report of the Bullock Committee on Literacy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I hope that, despite current financial constraints, all those with responsibilities in education will continue to keep in mind the Bullock Committee's
    1172
    recommendations, which covered all aspects of teaching the use of English in schools. The committee's report is too important to be set aside, although its full effects may not be felt for some time.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister recall that the Bullock Committee expressed grave concern about the shortage of school books in many areas? Does she recognise that since then the increase in capitation allowance has not kept up with the rapidly increasing costs of the publishing industry? What is she going to do about it?
    Miss Jackson: I am aware that capitation allowances, like all other forms of expenditure, have been affected by inflation. This is something of which the Bullock Committee made a feature, but these are primarily matters for local authority associations, as well as my Department. I have received no representations from them about the level of the allowances.

    Teaching Methods
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will initiate an inquiry into the advantages and disadvantages of traditional teaching methods as compared with a less orthodox approach.
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent research has been carried out on the results achieved by different teaching methods; and what conclusions he has drawn.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Research workers at the University of Lancaster recently published a report on teaching styles and pupil progress. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 3rd May, the Department and Inspectorate are studying the Lancaster University report but are not yet in a position to decide whether further research is needed.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that this report tended to mix up the two issues of teaching methods and the unrelated question of comprehensive education? Many of those who are totally

    1173
    committed to comprehensive education are seriously worried about whether one or two of the newer methods used are capable of producing the necessary numeracy required as an essential basis for higher scientific and technical work.
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is raising two different issues. First, it is true that people have sought to draw from the report lessons that are not contained in it, about the benefits of comprehensive education and the relative effects of formal and informal teaching. Dr. Bennett said that such lessons should not be drawn from the report. But standards of literacy and numeracy are separate issues, and a matter about which all of us are concerned. This is why the Assessment of Performance Unit was set up in the Department to monitor these kinds of methods.
    Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that at the very least this report confirms the anxieties felt by a lot of parents? In these circumstances it is time that the Ministry showed signs of taking the problem more seriously than it has done to date.
    Miss Jackson: I do not think that the report confirms the anxieties of parents. The very exaggerated and often quite inaccurate comments made about the report by hon. Members opposite and people outside this House may have caused unjustified anxiety among parents. Anyone who reads the report and considers what it says, as opposed to what is said about it, will realise that it is very hard to give a simple judgment of these things. It is difficult to decide how far a judgment made in the Bennett Report can be applied over the whole country. If the hon. Member is seeking to make a point on the value of informal and formal teaching methods, I remind him that a teacher who used basically informal methods got the best results in the survey.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing? Will both she and her Department take a little more interest in this question, and make sure that new teaching methods which are not fully tested or tried are not inflicted widespread on all children throughout the country?
    Miss Jackson: I accept that we should not have change for change's sake, or rush about installing new teaching methods. My hon. Friend's question seems to be a classic statement of the argument that we should not seek to rush about trying to reinstitute more formal methods of teaching in schools, and instituting change for change's sake. That is a very good reason for looking carefully at the result of this study, as with everything else contained in the report. We by no means dismiss the report, or take it lightly. We wish to consider seriously the real lessons to be learned from the report, and not to regard it as some kind of educational propaganda.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister assure us that when new theories are being put into practice there will be proper pilot schemes and a proper evaluation of those schemes before the theories are applied generally? My experience as a teacher of modern languages is that we have gone from one thing to another in that subject without properly evaluating anything, and we have lost a great deal in the process.
    Miss Jackson: I take it that the hon. Member is saying that we should not rush headlong into formulating new theories of excessively formalised education on the basis of the Bennett Report. I agree with him.
    Mr. George Cunningham: On the subject of teaching methods, does my hon. Friend agree that it will be useful to us all finally to get hold of the report of the ILEA inquiry into the Sir William Tyndale School? Does she realise that it is now eight or nine months since the inquiry began, and at least three months since it finished? Will the Department, realising that it has no locus standi in the matter, simply use its influence to chivvy the ILEA into getting the report out very quickly?
    Miss Jackson: This report is a matter not for us but for the ILEA, but we are concerned that it should be available as soon as is reasonably possible. My hon. Friend should not forget that it was a very long and complex inquiry. I cannot judge what the report says until I have seen it.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Minister take the report as a serious warning of some

    1175
    of the things that are going wrong, and that can be improved? Will she consider taking early steps to see that structured teaching is more widespread in all schools?
    Miss Jackson: It is a little hard to see what lessons we can learn from a report that I understand is not completely written yet, let alone published. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I must tell him that Her Majesty's Inspectorate has always, consistently throughout the years, advocated a structured framework of teaching in schools. There is nothing new, revolutionary or unacceptable about that.

    Comprehensive Reorganisation
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is prepared to meet representatives of those local education authorities which have not submitted plans for comprehensive reorganisation.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I would be happy to meet any authorities who wish to consider their position on secondary reorganisation.
    Mr. Forman: When he has the chance to meet representatives of the London borough of Sutton will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he is well acquainted with the strong arguments which were contained in the petition to which the London borough of Sutton contributed 28,000 signatures and which favoured a greater degree of parental choice and the preservation of good schools to ensure that they are not sacrificed on the altar of Socialist dogma?
    Mr. Mulley: I seem to have heard a lot about that petition, but not in the terms expressed by the hon. Member. I believe that a petition to this House must end in a particular way if it is to be in order. I met representatives of the Sutton authority last year and I asked them to give careful consideration to the points I made to them. They may have done that, but as far as I know they have not changed their position, and no doubt we shall have to look at the matter again when Parliament passes the Bill which is on the Order Paper for discussion later today.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Department doing any work on monitoring mixed ability teaching in comprehensive schools, or must we wait 15 years for another Bennett Report on that?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member must have come in late, thinking that we were on an earlier Question. Reorganisation by local authorities does not arise out of the point that he made. We may have to take more central control over these matters, but when I take even the modest step of suggesting to local authorities that they should conform to a national pattern, which is what the Education Bill seeks to do, I am accused of attacking local democracy.

    Examinations (Manchester)
    Dr. Boysonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to Manchester to discuss its external examinations with the local authority.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that published statistics of A-level examination results in Manchester indicated a fall of 20 per cent. between 1973 and 1974 in the results of 26 comprehensive schools there, and a falling off in the results of these comprehensive schools which make up two-thirds of the city's schools, compared with the one-third which are still voluntarily bipartite? If that is so, should there not be an inquiry into this fall in standards?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has a genius for misreading any research results for his own purposes. He knows that the Manchester report itself entered the most serious reservations about using the results to compare performances of comprehensive schools with other schools. He knows, too, that all surveys that are based upon a classification of the school at the moment when the examination results are obtained are subject to the criticism that many of the pupils in comprehensive schools have, in the course of their secondary education, been educated in more than one type of school.
    Mr. Hatton: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the survey results were first published in The Times Educational Supplement they appeared under the heading
    "Manchester shaken by survey of comprehensiveness"
    but that within a month the TES had considerably modified its point of view and said that results of this kind were notoriously difficult to assess, and that there were too many alternative explanations for the differences in the different sets of schools? Even as late as April of this year, in the reorganisation of Catholic comprehensive schools before the municipal elections, the same propaganda was put out, but it resulted in the Conservatives losing the seat and Manchester remaining under Labour control.
    Mr. Fowler: I recall all that with crystal clarity, and I can only express the hope that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) will show the same modesty and willingness to admit former error as The Times Educational Supplement did.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister say what kind of explanation would be acceptable from Manchester, if the information that has been published is supposed to be unreliable? Will the Department put inspectors in to produce a report that we can all understand and agree about?
    Mr. Fowler: I can give no guarantee that our research projects will be based in Manchester, high as my respect is for that city. We are funding a research project through the University of Hull, which I hope will be better controlled and more reliable than the Manchester survey, which was never designed to be used for the purposes for which Conservatives use it.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that successes in external examinations since comprehensive education was introduced all over the country are massively greater than before? Everyone knows that except the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). Does my hon. Friend accept that if the 11-plus examination was still as widely used as it was formerly, vast numbers of children who have taken first-class honours degrees, some of whom actually failed
    1178
    the 11-plus, would have been unable to take them? It ill becomes those who condemn comprehensive education not to look a little further and see the massive success that it really is.
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. He and I, however, as educationists, must share the blame for one failure, namely, the failure to enlighten the hon. Member for Brent, North, however hard we try.

    Teachers (Employment)
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified teachers are unemployed.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: 3,533 unemployed school teachers were recorded at unemployment offices in England and Wales in March.
    Mr. Luce: Will the Government now get their priorities right? In view of the monstrous waste of teacher talent and the urgent need to reduce the size of classes, why on earth do the Government not reduce the £328 million subsidy on school meals by the small amount required to employ all those teachers?
    Miss Jackson: One of the difficulties in deciding on priorities is the lack of advice that we have from the Opposition on all these matters. The Opposition simply say that all expenditure should be cut, but they have no real alternative priorities. The question of how many teachers are employed is not solely the responsibility of my Department. The Government have set the rate support grant at a level to give authorities enough money to maintain staffing standards, but the responsibility for how that money is spent rests with the education authorities. Since the Opposition defend the rights of local authorities, it is hard that they should criticise us for not exercising more control.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in education is as important as investment in industry? Is it not disgraceful that massive numbers of teachers are liable to be unemployed in the coming months? Will she persuade her colleagues that other spending, particularly on defence, would be better devoted to education?
    Miss Jackson: I agree that investment in education is as important as investment in industry, but difficult decisions have to be made. We cannot say that there are 25 areas on which it is tremendously important to spend money and that we will spend that money on all those areas; there is not enough money, and priorities must be decided. I regret that situation as much as my hon. Friend, but since the money is not available words will not produce it.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister give an estimate of the average unemployment benefit paid to the 3,533 teachers who are unemployed and say how it would compare with using those teachers to teach smaller classes?
    Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not have much experience of unemployment, or he would know that unemployment benefit, in the first period, is wage-related. The figures that he asks for would depend on the number of new teachers and the length of experience of others. I cannot, therefore, give him the figures, but if he wants some kind of average figure I shall attempt to obtain it. As to a calculation of the balance of cost, it is always possible to make such calculations, but they rarely fall on the side of the cut. Restraint on public expenditure nevertheless has to fall somewhere, and some of it, to my regret, has to fall here.
    Mr. Ward: What steps are proposed to enable the quick retraining of some unemployed teachers to fill the shortage that exists in some subjects, which will not be filled at all without changes?
    Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. My Department is considering what steps can be taken to retrain teachers in subjects in which there is a shortage.
    Dr. Hampson: When the Minister says that teachers cannot be exempt from harsh economic realities, what does that mean to teachers who are due to come out of the colleges in future years? Does she agree that the demoralistion of colleges is being made worse by uncertainty about whether the target is still 60,000 or is down to 45,000? Is it not wrong that this cat-and-mouse game should continue?
    Miss Jackson: If one had a crystal ball one would make precise predictions, but I am not able to say what the level of unemployment is likely to be in the future. At present, it is less than 1 per cent. of the teaching force, which is lower than the general unemployment rate. We do not make such forecasts, because factors change. Wastage among teachers has been substantial, and this is the most difficult time to make any prediction for the coming year. But I hope to have a clearer picture in the coming months.
    Mr. Wigley: Is it not monstrous that student teachers who were positively encouraged to go into colleges should find the outlook so bleak? Will the Minister consider introducing conversion courses in the third year of students' training, so that they can follow other necessary careers, such as speech therapy?
    Miss Jackson: To retrain in the final year of a course is a new idea. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that suggestion. We are doing everything that we can, given the distribution of powers between central and local government, to encourage education authorities to employ teachers fresh from training college. We are anxious about the matter, but we are doing as much as we can.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that investment in people by way of smaller classes, which would take up unemployed teachers, is an urgent and better priority for the Labour movement than any investment in death-dealing nuclear weapons that the Opposition support? Does she agree that local authorities, particularly those that are Conservative-controlled, should get their expenditure priorities right? Will she guide them to cut out such things as public relations officers and 100 per cent. grants to direct grant schools and, as in Bradford, the junketing, dinners and lunches splashed around by Tory authorities?
    Miss Jackson: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the essence of the Opposition charge against the Government that they have succeeded in doing two things—raising teacher unemployment to record levels whilst at the

    1181
    same time creating a record shortage in specialist subjects such as mathematics, science and the crafts? Does not that justify the charge in today's issue of The Guardian that the Secretary of State is guilty of incompetent complacency?
    Miss Jackson: I am more than a little astonished that the hon. Gentleman should dare to make that point, since a number of newspapers have recently said that it was during the existence of the previous Administration that the places that now produce unemployed teachers were planned. The previous Administration have also been open to the charge that it was their failure to take account of a planning target and to make this public that contributed to, if not created, the present situation.

    Tameside
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay a visit to Tameside.
    Mr. Mulley: I have at present no plans to do so, but I am meeting representatives of the authority in London tomorrow to discuss their plans for the transfer of children to secondary schools in September.
    Mr. Arnold: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative council took control in Tameside on the basis of a manifesto that pledged not to go ahead with the plans for comprehensive education drawn up by the previous council? Does it not have a clear duty to fulfil that pledge?
    Mr. Mulley: One of the difficulties is that the council, as a council, has taken no decision in these matters at all. It is meeting to discuss the subject for the first time this afternoon. In the light of that meeting, the members of the council have agreed to explain their policy to me. I do not wish to make any public judgments of what the council intends to do until I have had a chance to hear what the decisions are and I have discussed these with the council's representatives tomorrow.
    Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Tameside will he bear in mind that almost 90 per cent. of children go to a first-choice school and 96 per cent. to a first- or second-choice school? Is he aware that the teaching
    1182
    profession in Tameside and throughout the country unanimously support the need to retain a comprehensive system? Will the Secretary of State deal with the educational wreckers in Tameside in a form that is appropriate to meet the needs of the parents there?
    Mr. Mulley: It would be wrong for me to prejudge what the council's decisions today will be. I would not expect even a Conservative-controlled council totally to rule out the possibility that the proposed resolutions might be subject to amendment, and that reasoned argument might produce changes. Therefore, I am not forming a view until I know what the council, as distinct from various members of it, proposes to do.
    I am concerned about the time factor. It is a matter of trying to get clear and settled what the policy for the children and the parents will be in September. For that reason, I asked the council as early as 11th May to let me know the position. I later asked it to let me know last Friday what it intended, but it asked for extra time and I thought it reasonable to allow sufficient for its council meeting to discuss the matter before coming to meet me tomorrow.
    Mr. Montgomery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister assumed office he said on television that his Government would preserve our existing freedoms? In the light of that, why are they adopting this attitude to the Tameside authority? Why are they going against the clearly expressed wishes of so many parents who do not want comprehensive education but want some choice in the education of their children?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not prepared to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do, which is to prejudge the decisions of a meeting that has not yet taken place. In case the House is still sitting tomorrow, I have made contingency arrangements for the meeting to be held here, and I hope that the House will excuse me if I am absent from the consideration of the Education Bill until I have met the councillors. Until then I am not forming a view. I shall be interested to see whether the proposals that the councillors bring forward are in line with those that they submitted to the electorate in May.

    Lancaster University
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to Lancaster University.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the university.
    Mr. Lane: Hearkening to the earlier words of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), will the Minister of State take very seriously the research work by Lancaster University, pointing to the value of more formal rather than less formal methods of teaching? Does he accept that the Government should have no higher priority in education than the raising of academic standards in the schools?
    Mr. Fowler: I happily accept the hon. Gentleman's last point, just as I happily accept many of the points that he has made over the years, as a distinguished educationist himself. I respect the serious research which led to the Lancaster findings, but it would be rash to draw sweeping conclusions from one survey in a single region, where only 17 per cent. of the sample of teachers used what were described as informal methods and where there are other clear weaknesses in the survey material.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the Minister decides to change his mind and come to Lancaster University, will he allow me the pleasure of showing him round some of the schools that are the subject of the outstanding report to which there has been reference—schools that have been castigated by the trendy Lefties in my area as being 20 years behind the times but which provide outstandingly good education and produce children who can actually read and write when they go on to the next stage of education? Does he accept that the informal teacher described earlier as turning out excellent results had a particularly high incentive, in that her own child was in the form she taught and she was trying to cram her for a scholarship to a public school?
    Mr. Fowler: As a former member of the staff of Lancaster University, I must turn down—though I express my gratitude to her—the hon. Lady's offer to act
    1184
    as my guide. If the trendy Lefties in the university regard the schools as 20 years out of date, I can only speculate upon their view of the hon. Lady.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the justified emphasis that my hon. Friend has just put on the particularity of the Lancaster University investigation, does not that underline the fact that his Department, instead of reacting to and perhaps rejecting particular research, should be doing its own much more broad-based research throughout the country, which it is uniquely able to do?
    Mr. Fowler: We have a substantial research programme, both of our own and through other organisations. I referred earlier to one of our research projects, which is being undertaken through the medium of the University of Hull. We seek all the time to monitor educational standards in schools and to find out what teaching methods produce the best results.

    Education Welfare Officers (Training)
    Mr. Hookyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to improve the training of education welfare officers as recommended in the 11th Report of the Expenditure Committee, 30th July 1975, paragraph 136.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: The Government's reply to the Expenditure Committee's Report has now been published. It describes action being taken by the bodies responsible—local authorities, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the Local Government Training Board—to improve basic and in-service training for the education welfare service.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that truancy can be an important factor in eventual delinquency? Will she put pressure on the bodies concerned to look particularly at the valuable work that the educational welfare workers can do in this area?
    Miss Jackson: I fully accept my hon. Friend's comments. The Department sees great value in the work of the education welfare service. My right hon. Friend has taken steps to convene a

    1185
    meeting to discuss these very complex problems later this month.

    Bromley (School Place Allocations)
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what correspondence he has had with the Bromley branch of the National Union of Teachers on the subject of the places taken up by the London borough of Bromley at independent and direct grant schools.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: Last autumn my right hon. Friend received a complaint from the Bromley Teachers' Association about the Bromley Education Authority's policy.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Lady aware that by telling the Bromley teachers that the taking up of these places was a matter for the district auditor the Secretary of State was directly inciting them to challenge the policy of the Bromley council? Is she aware that many suspect that he was acting in collusion with the Bromley branch of the National Union of Teachers to force the abandonment of a policy which may have offended against the Socialist concept of educational egalitarianism but which at least provided an opportunity for many children in the borough to receive an education which otherwise their parents would have been unable to afford?
    Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in two ways. He is wrong, first, in suggesting that my right hon. Friend was seeking to incite the NUT to disagree with its local education authority. He was merely making a factual point about the existence of, and possible interest of, the district auditor. I am even more fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's assumption that fear of the Bromley branch of the NUT rather than fear of the district auditor forced the education authority to change its policy, but I suspect that it is not correct.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: What does my hon. Friend think of Conservative-controlled councils such as my own, in Enfield, which, despite their responsibility for the education of all children within the borough, consider that their schools are not good enough for a certain range of gifted children and that those children
    1186
    should be sent to independent schools, at the ratepayers' expense?
    Miss Jackson: It seems to me, as it seems to my hon. Friend, that such authorities should be devoting resources to the improvement of their own schools rather than saying that they can stay as they are for most children but that a few can have a different kind of education.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is one of the basic principles of the whole series of Education Acts that local education authorities should have the right, in order to widen parental choice and for other reasons, to take up places at independent schools? Will she now say why her right hon. Friend failed to confirm that fact to the members of the Bromley Borough Council when they approached the Department for guidance?
    Miss Jackson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend did any such thing. The hon. Gentleman and I have had this argument before. My right hon. Friend pointed out to the council what is a simple statement of fact, that it had a right to carry out expenditure of this kind, and it would not be for him to intervene, but that the policy might be a matter for the district auditor if the district auditor thought that the council was acting incorrectly. It is true that under the existing Education Acts local councils have the power to take such steps, but they also have a duty, which should be overriding, to provide a good standard of education for all the children in their area, in their schools.

    Blindness (Research)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report particulars of the research projects into the causes of blindness supported directly or through the Medical Research Council in each of the last three years; what was the amount of money allocated; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mulley: I am publishing the information in the Official Report. In addition, research into causes of blindness was undertaken at the Medical Research Council's Trachoma Unit until December 1973 at a cost of £20,600 in 1973–74 and biochemical studies of retinitis pigmentosa were undertaken at the council's Brain Metabolism Unit until 1975. Other

    1187
    council units have recently begun a study of some aspects of the genetics of retinitis pigmentosa. This forms part of a wider programme and the council cannot isolate the cost of the study.
    The council also supports considerable basic research on the eye and vision which may prove relevant to the problems of blindness.
    Mr. Pavitt: Why is it that when we have 160,000 registered blind people, with retinitis pigmentosa being the cause in about 40,000 cases, so little emphasis is given to this aspect of research? Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with this right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on the amount that can be given for research into blind-

    RECENT MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL GRANTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS ON CAUSES OF BLINDNESS

    Tenure

    Subject and Institution

    Annual Value £

    1970–73

    …

    Single unit discharge properties of the optic nerve with particular relation to amblyopia (St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School)

    9,512

    1970–73

    …

    Ocular vascular occlusive diseases (University of Edinburgh)

    11,516

    1970–73

    …

    Optical properties of the human lens (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    3,822

    1971–74

    …

    Investigations into the problems related to aqueous outflow in normal and glaucomatous eyes (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    16,183*

    1971–74

    …

    Macular disorders (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    7,214*

    1971–73

    …

    Visual callosal connections and their functions (University of Oxford)

    4,641*

    1971–75

    …

    The elastic properties of human lens fibres (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    804

    1971–74

    …

    An experimental and clinical study of choroidal blood flow and the effects of choroidal ischaemia on the eye (University of Glasgow)

    6,568*

    1972–73

    …

    Ultrastructural studies of the eye in health and disease (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    25,000

    1972–75

    …

    Regulation of stabilities of messenger RNAs for lens proteins (University of Edinburgh)

    7,956

    1972–73

    …

    Investigation into the toxic amblyopias, choroidal ischaemia, diabetic retinopathy and retinal detachment (University of Glasgow)

    2,739

    1972–77

    …

    Neuronal plasticity in the mammalian central nervous system (University of Cambridge)

    24,696*

    1972–75

    …

    Neurotransmitters in the retina (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    3,473*

    1972–73

    …

    An analysis of recovery mechanisms after acute experimental demyelination of the optic nerve (Institute of Neurology)

    7,949

    1973–76

    …

    Aspects of the management of chronic open angle glaucoma by topically applied therapy (University of Bath)

    2,904*

    1973

    …

    Assessment of value of suramin therapy for the long-term control of onchocerciasis in a heavily infected community

    1,624

    1973–76

    …

    Rôle of immune mechanisms in resistance to and pathogenesis of chlamydial infection in the guinea pig eye (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    3,545

    1973–74

    …

    Physiological and pathological processes in the eye (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    7,261*

    1973–76

    …

    Influence of visual experience on spatial and temporal resolution in visual system and its relation to amblyopia (St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School)

    6,273*

    1974–77

    …

    The rôle of cell mediated immune mechanisms in human chlamydial disease (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    7,972

    1974–77

    …

    Epidemiology and aetiology of non-specific genital infection in women (University College Hospital Medical School, London)

    11,370

    1974–77

    …

    Traumatic retinal oedema: clincal and experimental study into the factors responsible for its causation (University of Bristol)

    4,267*

    1974–76

    …

    Reflectromatric study of the response of the vascular circulation of the eye to raised intraocular pressure (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    3,730

    1974–77

    …

    Mediators and inhibitors of the ocular response to inflammation and trauma (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    3,102

    1974–76

    …

    Study of lens changes in diabetes (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    2,112*

    ness under the Dainton Report, which allowed funds to be earmarked for specific purposes under a contractor-customer relationship? Does he agree that a much higher priority should be given to blindness, which seems to have sunk to the bottom of the league table in relation to research and treatment?
    Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, the direction of this research is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The essence of the Medical Research Council and other councils is that they are independent, but I shall have discussions with my right hon. Friend, as my hon. Friend has suggested.
    The information is as follows:

    Tenure

    Subject and Institution

    Annual Value £

    1974–77

    …

    Biochemical studies on the lens and cornea of the eye, particularly cataract, and corneal scarring, in man (Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, University of Oxford)

    2,091

    1974–75

    …

    X-ray diffraction and micro-electrode study of corneal charge distribution, swelling and transparency (Oxford Research Unit, Open University)

    9,263

    1975

    …

    Clinical measurements of retinal haemodynamics using laser and signal processing techniques (Institute of Ophthalmology)

    18,692

    1975–78

    …

    Humoral immunity to chlamydial infections of the uro-genital tract (University of Birmingham)

    6,675

    1975–78

    …

    Factors influencing the ability of the retina and other ocular tissues to withstand ischaemia (Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Glasgow)

    10,719

    1975–78

    …

    The laboratory and clinical investigation of human oculo-genital infections with chlamydia (University of Liverpool)

    3,119

    1975–76

    …

    Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital)

    6,352

    Awarded 1975 (not yet taken up).

    Biochemical studies on cornea and lens of the eye, particularly cataract and corneal scarring in man (Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, University of Oxford)

    7,798

    * Partly funded by the Department of Health and Social Security. All other costs met from the Department of Education and Science grant-in-aid to the Medical Research Council.

    Primary Schools (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to replace nineteenth century primary schools in Derbyshire and the Bolsover constituency.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: It is for the local education authority to decide what priority it is able to give to replacing old primary schools within the lump sum resources for school building allocated to it by my right hon. Friend. Two such schools are currently being replaced in the Bolsover constituency.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that these difficulties are increased when education is to be cut by £680 million over the next few years? Is she further aware that the county council has run into financial difficulties over replacements, and will she take into account the fact that the Derbyshire Education Committee has allocated about £2 million out of its own capital receipts in order to speed up plans for comprehensive education in accordance with Government policy? Why is it not Government policy to help those who help themselves?
    Miss Jackson: The existence of many old primary schools, particularly in Derbyshire, is a matter of considerable concern to us. I was not aware that the authority was running into financial difficulties. I shall inquire into the matter.
    Mr. Rost: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is one primary school in Derby-
    1190
    shire which does not need replacing? Does she know that the village school at Dale Abbey is threatened with closure by the Labour-controlled Derbyshire Education Authority, despite the overwhelming wishes of the local population?
    Miss Jackson: This is a matter in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed interest before. When the proposal comes before the Department, his interests and those of other people in the area will be taken into account.

    Teachers (Retirement)
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider a voluntary early retirement scheme for teachers.
    Mr. Mulley: Proposals tabled by the teachers' association for voluntary retirement on pension at 55 were recently considered in the Teachers Superannuation Working Party, but discussion on them has been deferred.
    Mrs. Chalker: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect those discussions to be completed? Does he agree that if older teachers wish to retire early, some unemployed teachers could, if the right hon. Gentleman got a move on, be taking up these posts in September?
    Mr. Mulley: In the first instance the negotiations are between the employers—the local authorities—and teachers' unions. We seek to keep the arrangements in line with those for other local

    1191
    government employees. The question is whether it should be a voluntary retirement scheme or a matter of compensation for premature retirement, which is the normal practice for local government staff. I want to see whether there is a possibility of an early retirement scheme, but I would not think this is the only way of dealing with the difficulties that we have at present.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Is not one of the additional reasons for seeking to press on with the scheme the fact that many of the teachers now coming out of colleges of education are of a particularly good standard, which makes it doubly regrettable that they cannot immediately be employed? Is there not much advantage in a scheme to improve the quality of the teaching force in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)?
    Mr. Mulley: The question is whether the local authorities or the teachers should be able to take advantage of such provisions. It is right that the negotiations now being undertaken should be allowed to continue. On the question of employing teachers from training colleges. I agree that it is highly desirable that local authorities should fill all possible vacancies with young teachers, and not, as so often in the past, by taking people who have left teaching and gone to jobs in other industries, but who come back because the conditions are so much better than they were three or four years ago.

    CBI AND TUC
    Mr. Formanasked the Prime Minister when he last had discussions with the CBI and the TUC.
    Mr. Brittanasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of the CBI and TUC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.
    Mr. Forman: When he had his discussions with the CBI and others, did the Prime Minister take the trouble to get hold of a copy of the MORI Survey into the attitudes of working people, which showed that 86 per cent. of those polled favoured living in a free enterprise society and that the same percentage favoured wider profit sharing as an incentive to increase productivity?
    The Prime Minister: I did not get hold of a copy of the survey. Responses can depend on the way questions are framed. I have not had an opportunity to examine this questionnaire, but I dare say that it is as valuable as a great many others, including those which forecast the results of General Elections.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Financial Times survey of business forecasts, which showed the recovery in the economy to be in full swing? [Interruption.] Is he aware that this contained high investment intentions, although unfortunately, investment has been flagging? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member speaks even slower than I do.
    Mr. Shaw: In view of the unstinting contribution of the TUC, will my right hon. Friend nudge the CBI to encourage its constituent members to improve investment?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a most valuable point, on which the House should reflect. Investment has been sluggish so far, but there is reason to believe that it is now improving. Certainly the Department of Industry survey, which was published yesterday, suggests a sharp rise in investment in 1977. If that is true, it wil probably be the first time that British industry has taken advantage of an export-led boom before the consumer cycle has taken full effect. The fact that the Government have made available several hundred million pounds through the accelerated capital projects scheme will encourage industry to go ahead with further investment. We ask them to do so.
    Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he tell them that the Chancellor's statement yesterday represents not a victory for the Government but a defeat for their policies? When he next addresses the CBI, will he tell it that his only policy

    1193
    is to put Britain deeper into the red, to keep the red flag flying here?
    The Prime Minister: I still have hopes that one day Question Time will be a serious period, without Members just thinking up clever phrases in advance and then shouting them across the Dispatch Box.
    I think that the general opinion held about the credit that was advanced yesterday—I agree that that opinion is not shared by the Leader of the Opposition, but the right hon. Lady is in a somewhat isolated position in this matter—is that it was a valuable reinforcement of the international monetary situation.
    A collapse of the international monetary situation would do no good to anyone in the western industrialised world. It was mainly for that reason that the central banks got together to ensure that a currency that, in their view, was undervalued should not be attacked in a way that would destroy the bastions of the monetary system. The right hon. Lady says that that represents a defeat for the Government's policies. All I can say to her, in the immortal words of one of my predecessors, is that if she believes that she will believe anything.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister realise that he had to borrow from the central bankers—capitalist central bankers—because they had not got enough confidence in his Government's policies to purchase sterling?
    The Prime Minister: The central bankers do not purchase sterling in this sense, although they may intervene from time to time. This is normal, standard practice, under which central banks give assistance to each other by means of swap facilities. I am sure that one day the right hon. Lady will understand these things a little better.
    Mr. Bidwell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Trades Union Congress has called for the strongest anti-racist laws to emerge from this place? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the present situation, having regard to the anxiety about immigration generally? Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to prosecute policies to develop racial harmony in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I have not discussed this matter with the TUC or CBI, but my hon. Friend and the whole House will deplore the events that took place in his constituency at the weekend. It would be wrong for me to comment in detail on the murder, or on the demonstration, as criminal charges will come before the courts, but perhaps the House will allow me to say that race relations in this country have been good over the years, thanks to the good sense and moderation of the vast majority of our people of all communities.
    I think that the House will deeply regret the murder that took place at Southall but will want to pay tribute to the stand against violence taken by the leaders of the Asian and other minority communities in that area. I think that the House will also want to thank the police for the work that they did. I urge everyone not to allow passion to destroy our reputation as a tolerant, cohesive and unified society.
    The Government have taken a determined stand against racial discrimination in any form, and we shall continue to do so. The Race Relations Bill, which is now before the House, has received support from all parties. When, as I hope, it goes on to the statute book, with the support of all parties, it will be an indication to the minorities in our midst that they can live here as free and equal citizens with everyone else.
    Mr. Grimond: As the Prime Minister now consults the CBI and the TUC, will he think of consulting others, as well? As the Chancellor has now bought us some more time with these standby arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman sound out the various parties in the House, of which there are six, on the question whether there is any common ground for supporting the sort of measures that will need to be taken if we are to avoid another crisis in a year or two?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said "in a year or two" That is sufficient unto the day in some ways. But I would put that—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would only contain themselves, they might sometimes hear the end of a sentence without interruption. I would put that as too distant a perspective for any measures

    1195
    that need to be taken. No doubt we shall be discussing the real problem in due course. I have read that, after hours of anxiety, a motion is to go on the Order Paper, although I have not yet had the advantage of reading it. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing these matters, and that will be the opportunity to take counsel together to see what is necessary.
    I have stated the main problem, as I see it, on many occasions—namely, that with the upturn in investment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw), referred, there will be what, in the vernacular, I call two buckets put into the same pool of savings. This will cause problems not only to the Government but to the country as a whole if we are to avoid inflation. I go on saying that, because I think that those are the steps that need to be taken.

    ISLE OF GRAIN
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Grain.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Ovenden: is the Prime Minister aware of my disappointment that he will be unable to visit the area where the first shipment of British North Sea oil was landed, thereby missing an appropriate opportunity to make a statement about the Government's oil policy? Will he take the opportunity today to tell the House whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards achieving the Labour Party manifesto commitment of a majority public stake in all North Sea oil exploration?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry not to be able to visit the area. Somehow I do not think that my hon. Friend or I would get a pair if we were to ask for it at the moment.
    Mr. Lipton: There are plenty of pairs to be had.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is too cynical about the intentions of Opposition Members.
    The oil policy is working out broadly as we had hoped and intended. The stake
    1196
    that the Government are taking is now being worked out in negotiation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made a full statement on the matter. I am sure that even among the faint-hearts on the Opposition Benches it will be a cause for rejoicing that the import of our own oil from the North Sea this year is likely to save us about £1 billion on the balance of payments. That is another source of strength in which the whole nation can rejoice.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the benefit being gained by the British or English economy this year is of the order mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, will he indicate whether he is intent upon giving to the Scottish Assembly the oil revenues that the Assembly will need to improve the standard of living in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: The question of the revenues that the Scottish Assembly will control will no doubt be thrashed out in the course of devolution debates that we shall have. But if the United Kingdom is to remain as an integrated whole, the answer will undoubtedly be that no revenues can be hypothecated to one particular part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dalyell: If my right hon. Friend rightly concerns himself with the decisions of trade union conferences, while we are on the subject of the East Coast will he bear in mind that at Scarborough UCATT came down against devolution?
    The Prime Minister: UCATT was one of the few conferences that I did not attend. Perhaps that is the reason.
    Mr. Ridley: If the Prime Minister does not visit the Isle of Grain, will he have time to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who broke his word not to vote on the day before we rose for the recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to keep the hon. Gentleman as a member of his Administration when it is quite clear that he is not able to discharge an honourable obligation to the House?
    The Prime Minister: I note what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am afraid that there will not be a vacancy for him after all.
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    The Prime Minister—
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, to raise a point of order.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would care to rule on the situation that has recently developed in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is sitting underneath the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan).
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I am no expert in such matters.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent UNCTAD conference.
The fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development met in Nairobi, Kenya, from 5th to 31st May.
The conference adopted resolutions by consensus on a number of matters including commodity policy, developing country debt, the transfer of technology and certain institutional issues. In addition, a resolution was adopted by majority vote on transnational corporations, and a resolution on the development of international mechanisms to facilitate resource development in developing countries, including the proposal to consider the establishment of an International Resources Bank, was rejected in a vote by a narrow margin.
The major achievement was that consensus was reached on a resolution on commodities, the central issue before the conference. The resolution provides for a programme of negotiation, within a defined timetable, on products which have been identified as of particular interest to the developing countries. I welcome this decision, which I sought in my opening statement for the United Kingdom at the outset of the conference. It will give concrete shape to proposals put forward in Kingston a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
1198
The resolution also provides for preparatory meetings in relation to a common fund for buffer stock financing, to be followed by a negotiating conference, not later than March 1977, which will be open to all the members of UNCTAD. It is clearly right that this proposal should be studied further. The resolution recognises that there are differences of view on the objectives and modalities of a common fund, and, in common with a number of other developed countries, we have made it clear that our acceptance of the resolution is on the basis of that understanding.
I am glad to say that consensus was also reached on debt on the basis of a proposal which we had put forward in the course of negotiations. The resolution adopted by the conference confirms the willingness of the developed countries to consider quickly and constructively requests for help from any individual developing country finding itself in difficulties. It also provides for work to be done internationally in existing fora to establish from past and current experience what features might give flexible guidance for future operations.
We approached the conference with a full recognition of the serious problems which face the developing countries and of the contribution which the conference could make in seeking ways to alleviate those problems. Despite the differences of view which remained on certain points, I believe that the conference has made a substantial contribution towards that objective. For our part, we shall play a full and constructive rôle in the programme of international work which the conference has set in hand.
An account of all the issues dealt with by the conference will be published in a White Paper as soon as is practicable this summer. And I am placing in the Library the text of the various resolutions which were adopted by consensus or voted on, together with an explanatory statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development on the resolution on commodities.
Mr. Higgins: Is not this statement an attempt by the bland to lead the bland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general view of his performance at

1199
UNCTAD IV and, indeed, of the Government's attitude generally, is that it has been deplorable and has totally failed to give a lead in formulating an EEC position or in taking a generally constructive view on these issues? We understand that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was averse to taking any lead in Europe at all. Does he understand that in future we expect him to take a lead?
What precisely is the position concerning the common fund? Are we to understand that it is a mere commitment to study the idea further and no more than that?
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the decision on commodities
"will give concrete shape to proposals put forward in Kingston a year ago"
by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson). Yet, when we look at the statement, is it not the case that it is saying no more than that there will be further talks and negotiations?
Does not the statement make it clear that the Government did not make any specific proposal concerning debt relief but merely stated the existing position—namely, that any creditor country will look at the position if a debtor country gets into difficulty? Here again, is there not a considerable lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government for the real problems which we face as a result of UNCTAD? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate these matters? Following the end of UNCTAD IV, the Paris conference continues and the multilateral trade negotiations are continuing. Surely it is right that the House should have a chance of expressing its view so that we can urge the Government to take a more positive and less complacent line than has been made clear both this afternoon and at the conference.
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman undermines his criticisms by failing to give the Opposition's view on the key issue at the conference—the common fund. If the hon. Gentleman had told us that the Opposition were in favour of the common fund, the rest of his criticisms might follow. But, as he has been unable to
1200
state the Opposition's view clearly on that point, his criticisms are meaningless. Everyone knows that the key issue at the conference was the common fund. We decided that we could not support the principle of the common fund on the basis of the present proposals. However, we indicated that we were prepared to discuss it and that, if our reservations could be dealt with, the common fund presented a possibility that we could enter into. But we have serious reservations about the common fund. Because of our reservations and because we thought it right to voice them honestly at the conference, there has been criticism of us. But that does not mean that we did not take a positive view on the issues before the conference.
On the contrary, on commodities, the proposal originally made at Kingston—that we should negotiate for an agreement on a case by case basis—is going forward under the resolution adopted by the conference within the timetable which I suggested in my opening speech at the conference.
On debt, the proposal made by the United Kingdom Government in the course of negotiations was in principle adopted by the conference. That represents an advance. There will be consideration of the development of the debt situation within the Trade and Development Board.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms show no appreciation of the positive attitude taken by the Government not only within UNCTAD but within a whole series of negotiations which have been going on alongside UNCTAD within the CIEC and within the IMF, which has adopted proposals, with our support and approval, of great assistance to the developing countries. We have played a positive rôle not only in UNCTAD but in other negotiations and developments which have been going ahead.
Mrs. Hart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on managing at the last moment, with a slight change in the British position, to avoid the total breakdown of UNCTAD in Nairobi. Perhaps he will allow me to pay tribute to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the positive rôle that he played in the last week of UNCTAD.

1201
How did the British delegation vote on the Kissinger proposal for an International Resources Bank, which seemed to me to be unnecessary in view of other sources of international finance for private investment or to be a method of providing protection for multinational investment in developing countries?
Will the White Paper that my right hon. Friend is to publish state the various points of view that were put forward on the various issues at UNCTAD as well as the British position?
Finally, I have two very brief questions. First, will my right hon. Friend give a reassurance to the House that in agreeing to the common fund proposal, and to the negotiations that will proceed up to March of next year, the British Government really will take a positive and constructive approach?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend see whether within the Cabinet the matter can be raised of providing for a full ministerial committee, so that the briefing instructions for conferences of this kind, which are vital to us, are prepared with full consideration by all the Ministers concerned?
Mr. Dell: I am very well aware of my right hon. Friend's intense interest in this matter. No one can say of my right hon. Friend that her views on the common fund are in any way in doubt, therefore I take her criticisms seriously. But I must say to her that among the reservations we have in respect of a common fund are reservations on the ground of development policy.
To deal with particular questions, we voted for the Kissinger proposal. We think that it is an interesting and possibly valuable proposal as a way of providing new investment for the production of commodities which may well be necessary. One of the things that are thought to have happened over recent years is a falling away of investment in commodity development, for political reasons.
My right hon. Friend asked whether various points of view in addition to that of the United Kingdom Government will be put in the White Paper. I shall certainly look at that point. Of course, a very large number of nations are present at UNCTAD. Therefore there
1202
might be some difficulty in satisfying my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend asks us to take a really constructive view on the common fund. Of course, we shall enter constructively into the preparatory discussions on this matter to find out whether our reservations can be met. I give her a full assurance on that point.
Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State not agree that the conference illustrated the very deep divisions on this subject, and that in practical terms what the conference failed to agree was much more important than what it agreed? What was the extent of the disagreement between our own country and our partners in the EEC on the basic approach to these problems?
Mr. Dell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There were divisions on the common fund. But it seems to me that the positive aspect of the conference was the decision—which we supported and which I sought in my opening speech—to make concrete progress on individual commodities within a timetable. That, within the commodity field, seems to me to be the practical and valuable upshot of the conference.
It is known that within the European Community there was a range of views. I think that within the European Community only one country took a clearly favourable view of the common fund, and that was the Netherlands. The other member countries had different degrees of reservation about it. Perhaps we stated ours most clearly.
Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was profound and widespread disappointment in the country at the Government's general approach to this conference? Is he further aware that the negative attitude on the common fund, on buffer stocks and on debt relief gave the impression that our negotiators were not taking a forward look on a matter which is of vital importance to the economic well-being of this country?
Will he give an assurance that in the ongoing negotiations—they will go on for many years—we shall adopt a more positive approach, and not tail along meekly behind the United States and

1203
Germany, which are notorious hardliners in these matters?
Mr. Dell: Perhaps I have said enough about the common fund. I disagree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that we took a negative view on buffer stocks. On the contrary, we said that where buffer stocks were necessary in the context of a commodity agreement—and that is by no means so in the case of all commodity agreements—we were quite clear that the financing would be available. We did not take a negative view on debt relief.
My hon. Friend says that the economic well-being of this country is tied up in this matter. I entirely accept that That is one reason why we should take a serious view of this question and go for practical steps. The whole emphasis of our approach to UNCTAD was to go for practical steps rather than, if I may say so, grandiose schemes. Such schemes can perhaps hold up the practical steps rather than forward them.
Our most positive approach in the area of commodities was the Kingston initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), but that was a specific proposal, and there was no commitment within that proposal to go along with the common fund. It was a useful proposal and it has in essence got into a very important part of the commodity resolution that was finally adopted.
Sir John Hall: Will the Minister not agree that the results achieved by the various UNCTAD conferences since they were first started have been extremely disappointing? Will he not also agree that there is a feeling that the British Government made very little constructive contribution to the last conference, and that, in common with some other countries, they were more interested in talking than in doing anything positive? Will he not agree that this is a very unfortunate impression to create?
Mr. Dell: Certainly it is an unfortunate impression if it is thought that this country made little constructive contribution, but I do not believe that to be the case, nor do I believe that the record of the UNCTAD conferences has been disappointing.
1204
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the general scheme of preferences arose out of the UNCTAD conferences. One of the positive proposals that we made at this conference is that that scheme should be improved and developed. I hope that it will be, and that in the course of the multilateral trade negotiations, on which a resolution was passed at the conference, there will be further opportunities created for imports from developing countries. Therefore, I reject the view that the attitude of the British Government was not constructive. I believe that it was constructive, but it was also practical. We were seeking specific issues on which progress could be made.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the general consensus of criticism of Her Majesty's Government's position is that, while there were some last-minute concessions, the basic position was one of pursuing short-term economic self-interest for this country?
Has my right hon. Friend considered the Cabinet Office paper "Future World Trends", and particularly paragraphs 13 and 14 in which it is stated that
"Although it should be theoretically possible to feed the world's growing population until the turn of the century, the enormous political, social and economic problems involved make it unlikely that this will be achieved.… Unless there are resource transfers on a scale many times greater than at present, the effective check to world population will be the Malthusian trilogy of war, famine and disease."?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of this country we should adopt a much more constructive approach than we have seen so far, and that this will be essential if we are to preserve a world in which our children can grow up?
Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has underlined the importance, in respect of certain commodities, of commodity agreements. The Government have been going for that. We are a signatory of all the recent commodity agreements. We have made that constructive proposal.
I am afraid that it is true—I accept it, and it is obvious from the questions put to me—that the fact that we had reservations on the common fund has served to disguise a whole series of constructive steps which we took. On the other hand, in my judgment our reservations on the

1205
common fund are well founded. It is not the case that we are not prepared to discuss them. On the contrary, we are prepared to discuss them and we hope that they can be resolved. But these are serious reservations, and no one in the House should assume that because we have reservations on that proposal as a method of dealing with a commodity problem, we do not wish to deal with a commodity problem. On the contrary, we do, in accordance with the terms of the Kingston initiative, which indicated that the practical way to make progress was through individual commodity agreements.
Mr. Tim Renton: Surely, where the Secretary of State's argument falls down is that it was not necessary for the UNCTAD conference to take place for Britain to support single-commodity agreements. We have always been signatories to single-commodity agreements, as befits us as an importing nation. This was not a step forward at UNCTAD. Why did not the Secretary of State go to Nairobi with positive initiatives of his own, particularly on the question of a European investment fund, which has been discussed with the Commission regularly in the past month?
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows what has been done under the Lomé Convention. There was no such European proposal. That is the reason why I could not go to Nairobi with such a proposal. In respect of commodities, what I think was a step forward at UNCTAD is that the conference adopted this resolution together with a timetable. That is an important development.
Mr. John Mendelson: Although the Opposition may have a bad case for criticising the Government about their attitude to the common fund, that of itself does not make the Government's attitude necessarily any better. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more why the Government had these grave reservations on the common fund? Is it not equally correct that, while Holland may have been the country in the Common Market that took a very positive view, there are other traditional friends of this country, among the Scandinavian countries, for instance, that also took a very positive attitude? Why did my right hon. Friend not co-operate more closely with them? What is his atti-
1206
tude to Commonwealth opinion about the position on the common fund? Is there not now an urgent need for a debate on these matters so that the Government's view may be properly probed?
Mr. Dell: To answer my hon. Friend fully about our reservations on the common fund would obviously take some time. I shall summarise our view. My hon. Friend says "Let us have a debate." I am perfectly happy to have a debate. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. To summarise Britain's attitude on this proposal, it is that it seems to us to be entirely unselective and the financial aspects of it are as yet obscure, although UNCTAD has made certain estimates in that field. I am aware that the Netherlands was not the only developed country to support the common fund. Norway supported it, too. However, I think that they were the only two countries that went to the conference with a clear view in support of the common fund.
I am also aware of the attitude within the Commonwealth. While in Nairobi I had the opportunity of some conversations within the Commonwealth. It should be realised that although one must accept in these discussions that the Group of 77 is united in support of the common fund, even within the Group of 77 and within the Commonwealth there are different degrees of enthusiasm for the common fund.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I should like to request hon. Members to ask only one question, so that I may call every Member who wishes to put a question on this matter.
Mr. Blaker: Is it not important that when the further discussions to which the Secretary of State refers take place there should be a much more united attitude on the part of the Common Market countries than there was in Nairobi? Will he give an assurance that he will be bending his attention to that matter in the coming months?
Mr. Dell: I should be very glad to have a united view on this issue within the European Community, but there are differences of view. UNCTAD is a conference at which EEC member countries are separately represented. Therefore, it is not unnatural that different emphases

1207
are given even where there is a basically similar view. On the subject of the common fund, I think that most Community members take basically the same attitude. The Netherlands was clearly in favour. Denmark was somewhere in between. However, on that there was at any rate a large degree of basic unity, although again with different emphases.
Mr. James Johnson: In view of the continuing and continuous competition between Western democracies and the Eastern Communist States for, shall I say, the hearts and minds of the Third World, did it seem as fantastic to the Secretary of State as it seemed to myself to witness the Chinese attack upon the Soviet Union regarding their aid to the Third World, in which they were considered to be almost worse than we ourselves in our worst phases of the history of the nineteenth century? I happen to believe that the Chinese are doing a first-class job in Africa. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that matter?
Mr. Dell: I do not think that I have any useful comment on that question, except to say that I was pleased to see the Chinese delegate and the Russian delegate at the reception that I gave in Nairobi.
Mr. Crouch: Was any consideration given at the conference to consulting, in future, multinational companies about how they might contribute towards helping the developing world, instead of just criticising them, bearing in mind that of the world's 100 biggest economic units, multinational firms outnumber nations by 54 to 46?
Mr. Dell: Unfortunately, the discussion on multinational companies was very brief. It took place right at the end of the conference. It was hurried and, therefore, inconclusive, so I cannot say that there was any substantial discussion of this question.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that much of the criticism that has been directed towards the British Government was simply not shared by Africans who attended the EEC-ACP Conference at Luxembourg and who had been at Nairobi? Having said that, may I ask my right hon. Friend to get hold of the public statements of M. Cheysson,
1208
the Budget Director, and Mr. Krohn, the Director-General, in which they criticised the way in which the European countries had simply not got together before the conference, and in which they made statements to the effect that the Africans did not know whether they were talking to the Nine as the Nine or to separate countries of Western Europe? Will my right hon. Friend reflect upon those statements?
Mr. Dell: I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend has found about the attitude of certain African countries. I shall certainly get hold of those statements. I think that I have a fair idea what M. Cheysson thinks about the EEC position at the UNCTAD conference. I should be very happy to achieve a greater degree of unity on this question within the European Community.
Mr. John H. Osborn: While supporting the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the ACP conference in Luxembourg last week, following UNCTAD, may I ask whether there was not an element of confrontation in Nairobi? To what extent was this due to the fact that the developing countries are recognising that their raw materials and commodities will be increasingly scarce and, therefore, that any agreement should be at high prices rather than at low prices?
Mr. Dell: There is inevitably something of an air of confrontation at UNCTAD conferences, because of the structure of the conferences. However, fortunately we were able to get over that in the end in the final resolutions. As I said, we have developed a sound basis for further progress. One of the practical difficulties in making commodity agreements is precisely that which the hon. Gentleman raises, that is, the range of prices within which they should operate. It is this sort of practical difficulty to which we have to address ourselves, and we must now try to make progress on that within the timetable that has been agreed.
Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reasons that he gave for the support by the Government of the Kissinger bank initiative will not be found convincing by many of his supporters on the Government side of the

1209
House? When did the Government first hear of this proposal, and at what level was a decision taken to vote for it?
Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend knows, Ministers take responsibility for decisions made by the British Government. I am sorry that he finds the reasons that I gave for interest in this proposal unconvincing. We have not said that we support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have not had time to study it for long enough. What we have supported is the proposal that there should be further study. That is absolutely right, because it appears to address itself to what is an essential element in this problem, and that is producing more commodities to meet expanding demand. That will require additional investment and this may be one way of achieving that additional investment.
Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that although the persons and organisations in this country that have had a passionate concern about the Third World may not be the largest or most powerful, they are, nevertheless, extremely knowledgeable about these things, and it is with them that the Government's reputation at UNCTAD has sunk very low indeed? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend yield to pressure from all quarters of the House that, having got past UNCTAD, he will now take the quickest steps to implement the actions required by the negotiations, because urgency is needed in order to raise public esteem above its present level?
Mr. Dell: I recognise that the Government's attitude on the common fund was not popular with the organisations to which my hon. Friend refers. However, that does not mean that the Government's reservations were ill-founded. I have given the House an assurance that we shall enter constructively into preparatory discussions, which have been laid down and required by the resolution upon commodities passed by the conference.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to trade union and labour relations; and for connected purposes.
It has been said that Ten-Minute Bills are rather like trying to organise a "bring and buy" on the Wembley pitch just after the Cup Final. I understand this. Yet I am fortified because I believe that I am dealing with something which is fundamental to the evolution and indeed to the very existence of the House of Commons—the individual assailed by arbitrary power. The story of this place over the centuries has been that of a long struggle to limit and balance the power of man over man. If we do not stand for this we stand for nothing in this place.
Many may conclude, because I am concerned about the trade unions, and the closed shop, that the minds of hon. Members opposite will be closed to my argument before I even begin. I do not believe that, because I do not believe that hon. Members opposite, any more than my hon. Friends, can be insensitive to the sort of unkindness, waste and injustice which I have to describe. I therefore ask sincerely, for their consideration of what I have to say. I confess that although I detest the concept of the closed shop myself, I recognise that in some circumstances it may serve as a convenient arrangement for both sides in industry. I recognise also that among those who stand against it there may be from time to time, people who seek advantage without contribution. However reprehensible that may be, my case is that this can in no sense excuse, or mitigate, the sort of injustice, even evil, which can be seen to result from the closed shop that this evil has been immeasurably extended under the Act that we have just passed in this House.
Take the absurdity of religious grounds for objection. These are undefined and in the words of the Secretary of State himself are "undefinable". He said:
"… religious beliefs … are based on precepts of faith which can be tested only by those who possess that faith".—[Official Report, 11th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1701.]

1211
Amen to that. He added later:
"I do not know where we can find the definition of religious belief".—[Official Report, 1st October 1975, Vol. 897, c. 1390.]
Well, I will tell him—ask British Rail! Mr. Cecil Lloyd appeared before their "inquisition" in Euston Square recently. This comprised representatives of ASLEF, NUR TSSA and one from management. He pleaded religious grounds—Second Corinthians verse 6 to be precise. He gets the sack on Saturday. So does Bob Harris of Gloucester. So does Mr. Cave and his son, of Nottingham. Mr. Cave has done 26 years service with British Rail. He belongs to the Christadelphians Sect, which counsels abstinence from all worldly associations, including trade unions; but because they do not
"specifically proscribe their members from joining a trade union "
freedom of conscience has been denied them, too. They got the sack. What are these people to do when they come in front of the tribunal. I suppose they must invoke the presence of God.
I wish to turn to a different kind of case—that of two ladies, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant, who have been employed by a small firm of printers, Philip and Tacey, of Andover, Mrs. Peters since 1972 and her daughter, Mrs. Tarrant, since 1971. This case has been of particular concern to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and happily it, at least, has attracted some publicity thanks to the vigilance of Mr. Bernard Levin. Mrs. Tarrant joined the union SOGAT but her mother, Mrs. Peters, refused, although I think she might have changed her mind had it not been for what followed. SOGAT subsequently declared her work "black" by a vote of 35 to 16 and she was obliged to sit around doing nothing. Her daughter, Mrs. Tarrant, then resigned from the union and both were subsequently subjected to a sustained campaign of badgering, vilification and bullying which lasted, according to the tribunal, from February 1973 to January 1974. No union officials were involved, but no union officials put a stop to it either. After this things were said to have improved according to the tribunal and a letter described as an "olive
1212
branch" was sent to these ladies, but they had had enough. Of course they got the sack. The last page of the tribunal report stated—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. First, it is almost impossible for me to know the interchanges below the Gangway and, secondly, a Ten-Minute Bill is usually heard in silence.
Mr. Hastings: I should be grateful for injury time, Mr. Speaker. The report said:
"We have no doubt that some, if not the majority, of Mrs. Peters' and Mrs. Tarrant's fellow workers were beastly to them and treated them with inhumanity "
But they concluded that from early 1974 the atmosphere became more relaxed and the union was prepared
"to let bygones be bygones".
Therefore:
"Neither applicant had reasonable grounds for objection".
I quote from Hansard:
"It is better that these matters should be settled by peaceful persuasion. That is the cause for which we stand and this Bill is part of our remedy."—[Official Report, 7th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 245.]
Those are the words of that apostle of liberty the present Leader of the House. I invite him to go down to Andover and to explain what he meant to Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant.
I have a letter from Mr. A. M. Potter of Keston in Kent who describes how a union called the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers, directly encouraged by this Act, is trying to threaten their way into advertising art, writing and photography. He writes:
"During all my 35 years in my trade I have never known anyone express any desire for union involvement in our affairs. Nor has there been any complaint concerning wages or conditions that has not been satisfactorily dealt with by ourselves. Our workers and employers enjoy great mutual respect."
On one occasion recently when officials of this SLADE visited the studio, "blacking" notices were put up. When the employers asked whether the union had consulted the employees the answer was "We do not care what your staff says, we shall get them."
Let us consider the matter of grounds a little more widely for a moment. Mr. Rex Frost, of British Transport

1213
Hotels, when told recently "Join or go" wrote to the Manager (Train Catering Department):
"I am now required to sign an application on which I undertake to abide loyally by the rules of the Association and to use my best endeavours to promote its objects and interests. It would be quite wrong for me to use my best endeavours to promote any objects or interests which I believe to be harmful to my country, my employers, my colleagues and myself. To retain my job by signing a statement which I know to be false would be as dishonest as obtaining goods by signing a cheque which I knew to be worthless."
Is that unreasonable? Incidentally I am informed that Mr. Frost has not had a reply to that letter.
Mr. Roger Webster, 18 years' service with British Rail, was sacked last week. He gave this, among others, as his reason for objection:
"Talk of benefits negotiated by the unions is nonsense. The total process of all union negotiations causes us all to be impoverished. When there is no money in the national kitty we cannot have more on the pay slip without it being borrowed money; without it having less purchasing power; without it bleeding our social structure; without it causing unemployment; without it debilitating our industry."
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer disagree with those remarks?
Anyway, by what process have these heroes in British Rail decided that their membership wants the closed shop at all? Mr. Willsteed is about to leave the shipping and international services division at Southern House. The hat was passed round on his behalf by his colleagues, and they are trade unionists. The appeal was headed "Farewell with honour". It went on:
"In the eyes of many of us his stand for freedom and personal conviction is a most worthy one and you may care to contribute even a token amount towards a gesture on his departure"'.
All but three of his colleagues did.
What are these unfortunate people to do unless this Act is changed? I will tell hon. Members one thing. Mr. Webster whom I have already mentioned—they have picked on the wrong man in Mr. Webster—has established with some difficulty what many of us know—that this law has no parallel in West Europe, where the closed shop is either very rare or expressly forbidden by law. He is taking his case and that of 20 of his colleagues to the European Court of Human Rights where there is a very
1214
good chance that it will be seen to transgress either Article 9 or Article 11 or both. The British Government attested to the Treaty in 1951, but what a state of affairs when an Englishman has to turn to an international court for justice in his own country!
The sufferers in all these cases—and I have done my best to check this—share three qualities. They are not troublemakers of shirkers, they are loyal to their employers and they are hard-working and competent people. These qualities avail them little, it seems, in trade union-dominated Socialist Britain. Happily, however, through the Press and through organisations such as the National Association for Freedom, some of these cases are coming to light, but what worries me are those which do not come to light at all. How many are averted because people are afraid—afraid of bullying and intimidation, afraid of deprivation, afraid of the consequences of unemployment, afraid of what they regard as the inevitability of union power, against which there is no redress or possibility of appeal?
Again and again this Government claim that only they can get on with the unions. Well, this is the price of it, this toll of injustice and even persecution under the law. People tolerate this sort of thing from one motive only, and that is fear. So long as such a situation persists, this is not truly a free country and most certainly the House of Commons is failing in its duty.
I say to the hon. Members opposite that just for once they should put aside Socialist precepts and resist the pressures of the mighty outside this place. Let us all, for once, listen to the lesson of history and the warnings which these events so clearly sound for us, and—before oppression becomes a habit—let us amend this abominable law.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Ioan Evans: I rise to oppose leave being given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).
This Government have a good record of improving industrial relations and repairing the damage of earlier years. The progress can be outlined by an extract from the Department of Employment Gazette for May which shows that. From

1215
January to April 1975, 2,106,000 days were lost through industrial disputes, but that in the corresponding period this year, that figure was down to 1,188,000. The first election of 1974, in February, was fought at a time of conflict and confrontation with the trade union movement. This Government have replaced that policy and we now have a policy of conciliation and co-operation.
The Government presented the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill in November 1975 to reverse the Opposition amendments made, against the Government's wishes, to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974. That Act was the first step towards the repair of industrial relations by repealing the Conservatives' notorious Industrial Relations Act of 1971. The two particular cases to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred arose under the previous Government's Act.
The second step in the Government's programme for industrial relations was the Employment Protection Act, which built on the foundations laid down by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act by extending workers' rights and strengthening collective bargaining. It provided also for guaranteed payments for those on short time, financial protection for employees whose employers became insolvent, longer notice of termination of employment and advance consultation with trade unions about planned redundancies.
The rights of workers have advanced a great deal since 1926. I was at a meeting in the Valleys of South Wales on Saturday with miners who remembered that period when miners earned 19s. 6d. and worked a six-day week. In that period, the workers bad virtually no rights. Now the trade union movement has become far stronger. The problem in Britain today is not that the unions are too strong but that they are not strong enough. We in this House should appeal to every worker, by hand or brain, to join his appropriate trade union.
If the liberty of the people of this country has been increased and enhanced, it is because of the efforts of the trade union movement. One has only to read the history of the Todpuddle Martyrs and others to see that.
1216
Closed shop agreements between employers and unions have been legal again since September 1974, when the Industrial Relations Act was repealed. Does anyone wish to return to the time when that Act was on the statute book? Even the Conservative leadership dissociate themselves from that.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the dismissal of Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant, which arose under the legislation of the previous Government. An independent industrial tribunal said that their dismissal was not unfair because they were considered to have no good reason for declining to join the closed shop.
Mr. Hastings Mr. Hastings rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In theory, both hon. Members are being heard in silence.
Mr. Evans: The main argument for resisting the Bill is that labour relations have been exhaustively discussed here and elsewhere for a number of years. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House. When Secretary of State for Employment he introduced the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974, the Employment Protection Act of 1975 and the amending Act of 1976.
The issues raised today have been raised extensively and considered during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act and before. Nothing new arises on the Bill. What is needed now is for employers, management, employees and unions to get together to get us out of our present difficulties. There has been a tremdendous response by trade union leaders. Jack Jones, High Scanlon and others are giving a lead. It is a pity that the Conservative Party could not have given the same lead over the pound.
I hope that the House will throw out the Bill and that we shall make greater progress towards improving industrial relations.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 226 Noes 287.

Division No. 166.]

AYES

[4.20 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Grist, Ian

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Arnold, Tom

Grylls, Michael

Osborn, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hall, Sir John

Page, John (Harrow West)

Awdry, Daniel

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Banks, Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Paisley, Rev Ian

Beith, A. J.

Hannam, John

Pardoe, John

Bell, Ronald

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Parkinson, Cecil

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Hastings, Stephen

Percival, Ian

Benyon, W.

Havers, Sir Michael

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hawkins, Paul

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Biffen, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Prior, Rt Hon James

Biggs-Davison, John

Hicks, Robert

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Blaker, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Raison, Timothy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hooson, Emlyn

Rathbone, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Hordern, Peter

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Brittan, Leon

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Brotherton, Michael

Hunt, John

Rifkind, Malcoim

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hurd, Douglas

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Buck, Antony

James, David

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Burden, F. A.

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

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Jessel, Toby

Royle, Sir Anthony

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Sainsbury, Tim

Churchill, W. S.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Jopling, Michael

Scott-Hopkins, James

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Clegg, Walter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Cockcroft, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Kimball, Marcus

Shersby, Michael

Cope, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Silvester, Fred

Cordle, John H.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Sims, Roger

Cormack, Patrick

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sinclair, Sir George

Corrie, John

Lane, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Costain, A. P.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Crouch, David

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Spence, John

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Lawson, Nigel

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Ian

Stainton, Keith

Drayson, Burnaby

Loveridge, John

Stanley, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Luce, Richard

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Durant, Tony

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

McCrindle, Robert

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stokes, John

Eyre, Reginald

MacGregor, John

Storehouse, Rt Hon John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Stradling, Thomas J.

Fairgrieve, Russell

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Farr, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Norman

Fell, Anthony

Marten, Neil

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mates, Michael

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mather, Carol

Townsend, Cyril D.

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Maude, Angus

Tugendhat, Christopher

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Forman, Nigel

Mawby, Ray

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mayhew, Patrick

Wakeham, John

Freud, Clement

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Fry, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Molyneaux, James

Walters, Dennis

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Monro, Hector

Warren, Kenneth

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Montgomery, Fergus

Weatherill, Bernard

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wells, John

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan, Geraint

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Goodhew, Victor

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodlad, Alastair

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mudd, David

Younger, Hon George

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Neave, Airey

Gray, Hamish

Neubert, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grieve, Percy

Newton, Tony

Griffiths, Eldon

Normanton, Tom

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie and Mr. Nick Budgen.

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Nott, John

1218

1219

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Anderson, Donald

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McNamara, Kevin

Archer, Peter

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Armstrong, Ernest

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Magee, Bryan

Ashley, Jack

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mahon, Simon

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Atkinson, Norman

Forrester, John

Marks, Kenneth

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marquand, David

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Freeson, Reginald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Bates, Alf

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Meacher, Michael

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

George, Bruce

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Bidwell, Sydney

Gilbert, Dr John

Mendelson, John

Bishop, E. S.

Ginsburg, David

Mikardo, Ian

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Golding, John

Millan,. Bruce

Boardman, H.

Gould, Bryan

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Gourlay, Harry

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Graham, Ted

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Molloy, William

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Moonman, Eric

Bradiey, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Bray, Or Jeremy

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hardy, Peter

Moyle, Roland

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Harper, Joseph

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Buchan, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Buchanan, Richard

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Newens, Stanley

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Noble, Mike

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Hatton, Frank

Oakes, Gordon

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Ogden, Eric

Campbell, Ian

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

O'Halloran, Michael

Canavan, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

Orbach, Maurice

Cant, R. B.

Hooley, Frank

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Carmichael, Neil

Horam, John

Ovenden, John

Carter, Ray

Howell, Rt Hon Denis

Owen, Dr David

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Padley, Walter

Cartwright, John

Huckfield, Les

Palmer, Arthur

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Park, George

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parry, Robert

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pavitt, Laurie

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Colquhoun. Ms Maureen

Hunter, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Concannon, J. D.

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Perry, Ernest

Conlan, Bernard

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Prescott, John

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Corbett, Robin

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Janner, Greville

Radice, Giles

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cronin, John

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Richardson, Miss Jo

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cryer, Bob

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Judd, Frank

Rooker, J. W.

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Kaufman, Gerald

Roper, John

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kelley, Richard

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kerr, Russell

Rowlands, Ted

Deakins, Eric

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kinnock, Neil

Selby, Harry

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lambie, David

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dempsey, James

Lamborn, Harry

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Dormand, J. D.

Lamond, James

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Dunn, James A.

Leadbitter, Ted

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Dunnett, Jack

Lee, John

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sillars, James

Eadle, Alex

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Silverman, Julius

Edge, Geoff

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Skinner, Dennis

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lipton, Marcus

Small, William

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Litterick, Tom

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Loyden, Eddie

Snape, Peter

English, Michael

Luard, Evan

Spearing, Nigel

Ennals, David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Stallard, A. W.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

McCartney, Hugh

Stoddart, David

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McElhone, Frank

Stott, Roger

Evans, John (Newton)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Strang, Gavin

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

Faulds, Andrew

Mackenzie, Gregor

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Maclennan, Robert

Swain, Thomas

1220

1221

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Ward, Michael

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Watkins, David

Williams, Sir Thomas

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Watkinson, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Tierney, Sydney

Weetch, Ken

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Tinn, James

Weitzman, David

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Tomlinson, John

Wellbeloved, James

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tomney, Frank

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Woodall, Alec

Torney, Tom

White, James (Pollok)

Woof, Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Whitehead, Phillip

Young, David (Bolton E)

Urwin, T. W.

Whitlock, William

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Wigley, Dafydd

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. Ivor Clemitson and Mr. George Rodgers.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  Education Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your assistance on a matter that is causing great inconvenience to the whole House, to no one more than yourself. Because of the change of business, no printed paper was available until 1.30 p.m. for the business now to be discussed. Indeed, papers became available only because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). So far as I am aware, neither the Department nor the Leader of the House did anything to secure the availability of those papers to enable you, Mr. Speaker, to make your selection of amendments, and hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to know precisely what business they would be discussing today.
  Again and again, similar incidents occur. I should like to express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will look, not for the first time, at the question of ensuring that the papers necessary for the conduct of our business are available in time.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly prepared, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested in the latter part of his remarks, to look at this question for the future. I regret that the marshalled list of amendments to the Bill was not available in the House before 1.15 p.m. today. Because of the abnormal number of amendments tabled yesterday, the final copy was not available for the Parliamentary Press until 2.5 p.m. today.
  Marshalled amendments, totalling 223 pages, were required for the consideration of nine Bills today. Priority of production was given to amendments to be considered in Committees at 10.30 a.m.
  I apologise for the inconvenience caused to the House by this delay, but the House owes a great debt of gratitude
  1224
  to the servants of the House in the Stationery Office who worked very hard last night to try to meet the requirements of the House. The fault does not rest with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "It rests with you."] Yes, but it is also a matter of courtesy that the House should pay tribute to those who worked hard last night to meet an abnormal flood of amendments. I apologise to the House for the fact that the documents were not available, but the House also owes a debt of gratitude to the workers who produce the documents.
  Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the apology that he has made, and I accept it. I wish to make clear that I am in no way reproaching the staff of the House or of the Stationery Office, who have to deal with a great volume of business at short notice. It is the short notice from which my complaint stems. If the Government reorganise their business at short notice, for whatever reason, they must take special measures to ensure that the necessary papers are available. If they cannot be made available for good reasons, the Government should cancel the business.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall listen to the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) in one moment. I allowed the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to make his point, which is not a point of order that I can deal with, because the House has the right to an expression of opinion when papers are late.
  Dr. Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In what circumstances can the expensive machinery downstairs be used by the House? As the onus rests on the Leader of the House to service hon. Members, should not he have checked whether the printed papers were ready by 11.30 am, when the Stationery Office and the Clerk's Office expected them? Surely, the Leader of the House should keep a watchful eye on these matters and use our emergency procedures if necessary.
  Mr. Foot: If there has been any mistake in the operations, I shall inquire

  1225
  into it. All I am saying, as I am perfectly entitled to say, is that an abnormal amount of work was thrust upon the servants of the House last night, and it is right that this should be mentioned in the House because those responsible worked very hard to try to meet the requirements of the House.
  Mr. William van Straubenzee (Woking-ham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a different but related point, may I ask for guidance? We have in our hands only your provisional selection of amendments up to New Clause 50. I make no criticism of the Chair, which must have had to work at very short notice. Will you tell those of us who want to follow these matters with appropriate expedition and care when we shall know the selection of amendments? The Government's intention is that we shall deal with this business at this sitting, and it hardly seems reasonable that we should do so without knowing the amendments selected for debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I can inform the House that I have signified a provisional list of amendments up to New Clause 45. I thought that would be adequate for the House until 6 o'clock, when I shall be able to produce the rest of the list.

New Clause 2

  CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS OF TEACHERS TO BE PROVISIONAL
  The appointment of teachers by a local education authority under section 24(1) of the Education Act 1944 to a proposed new school or to a school to be altered in accordance with proposals made under section 13 of the said Act, shall be considered provisional until the establishment of the new school or changed school; and such contracts as may be prepared in anticipation of such future appointments shall be considered null and void in the event of the new school, or the school changed under proposals made under section 13, not being established'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I shall explain to the House the technicalities of this new clause, but it is not wholly technical. It has contemporary relevance and would have, in certain circumstances, far-reaching effects. The appointment of teachers is, of course, a
  1226
  power within the scope of local education authorities, and that power of appointment is part of the idea of diarchy which runs throughout our educational system—or which did run through it until this Bill appeared to strike a note of discord. It has been a fundamental principle of our system under the Education Acts from 1944 onwards that there has been not one power but two; indeed, one could say three, because the powers of the Secretary of State have been very carefully balanced against those of local education authorities, and the powers of both those persons or groups of persons have been balanced against the rights and powers of the voluntary schools.
  The whole educational system has grown up gradually and organically. It has been essentially an evolutionary system, not a manufactured one. It has grown up over a very long period and has adapted itself according to circumstances. It has not been modelled on a kind of Benthamite blueprint, thought up in the mind of some super-Secretary of State. It is important to note the position of the voluntary schools, to which we shall come back in other new clauses and amendments, because those schools were first on the educational scene. Long before the State took an interest in educational matters the Churches were in the field, doing their educational work.
  It is not the intention of this new clause to interfere in any way with that balance and harmony. With regard to voluntary schools of the aided variety, the appointment of teachers is in the first place a matter for the governors, and that is an extremely vital power to them. But it is for the local education authorities to determine the number to be employed, and they have eventual powers of dismissal. Section 24 of the 1944 Act, to which this new clause refers, ends with provisions for the protection of women that are, happily, no longer necessary, saying that no person shall be disqualified from holding a teaching position merely because she is a woman, and that no one is to be dismissed because of marriage. Those provisions may well have been necessary in 1944, but I hope that they are no longer necessary to have in law, though the principle is correct today.
  The powers of local educational authorities to employ teachers should be retained. The frequently-expressed fear

  1227
  under the various proposals for reform of the rate is that local education authorities would lose control, because they would have no direct financial responsibility for the education service. As long as local education authorities continue to employ teachers and as long as there is co-operation between them and the governors of voluntary schools, those fears, I believe, need not be taken too seriously, because independence will be preserved through that mechanism rather than a financial mechanism, as such.
  4.45 p.m.
  This amendment can be considered in relation not only to Section 24 of the Education Act 1944 but to Section 13 of that Act, perhaps the most celebrated section of the whole Act, with which generations of Ministers have struggled and moved into travail at various points.
  It is precisely in a situation that would be created by proposals put forward under the Section 13 procedure that this amendment would come into operation. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the provisions of that section. Where it is desired to establish a new school, to maintain a school that was not previously maintained, or to cease to maintain a school, or where it is thought desirable to make a significant change in the character of a school by way of enlargement or otherwise, recourse must be had to the very detailed procedures laid down by Section 13.
  I do not believe that hon. Members at the present moment—at any rate those on the Opposition side of the House—are likely to make the mistake of underestimating the importance of procedure, because we have no constitution, and if we disregard procedure our system, far from being the guarantor of liberty, is in fact a system under which there can be more tyrannous oppression than under any other democratic system so designed. That is why, in recent days, the Opposition have attached such importance to the preservation of the due procedures of this House; because the preservation of those procedures as laid down by law is as much a protection of the liberty of the subject and a protection of freedom in education as it is a protection in wider spheres.
  1228
  Section 13 provides that proposals must be submitted to the Secretary of State if any of the changes that I have detailed are to be made. The same goes for voluntary schools if there are to be changes in their status. Subsection (3) makes quite clear what those procedures are—public notice, two months for objection, and numerous other important procedures that are laid down. The courts have been zealous in enforcing these procedures and making sure that they were followed in every case, both in the spirit and in the letter.
  There is one important point that applies to this new clause, as I shall hope to show, namely, the difference in the status of proposals in relation to new schools and alterations to existing schools. If proposals for a new school are approved by the Secretary of State it becomes the duty of the authority that has put forward the proposals to give effect to them in accordance with the specifications and plans so approved, but that provision does not apply to proposals for the alteration of an existing school.
  This point will recur throughout our debates. Once the Section 13 procedure is started, an element of uncertainty is automatically introduced into the position of schools. Once the proposals are put forward, they are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. There is the possibility of revised proposals being pit forward by the local education authority and there is also the possibility of an overriding change of circumstances, which may well cause a local education authority to change its mind and not wish to go ahead with plans and proposals. That may happen because those plans are no longer appropriate in the changed conditions of the time, or there may be a political change in the weather—a change that will alter totally the policy followed in a particular area. This is not an academic disquisition, because we are faced with exactly that decision in what has been going on in the borough of Tameside since the local elections took place. There was a political change in that instance.
  I shall be as objective as I can in describing the situation for which this clause is designed. I applaud the Secretary of State, who has been so judicious in his observations so far.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Malley): Does not the hon. Gentleman mean "judicial"?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I mean "judicious", although the right hon. Gentleman may well have to exercise a judicial rôle. That is the distinction that I make. I choose my words carefully, although I do not possess a first-class degree of the kind about which we hear so much from the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend has an even better degree.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I possess another first-class degree, although not of the same kind. Because of his judicial capacity, the right hon. Gentleman may be called on to exercise his powers under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, which enables him to direct a local education authority if he comes to the conclusion that it is making unreasonable use of its functions. He should be careful in every word he utters. Indeed, we should all be careful, but I am not under the same degree of restraint as is the Secretary of State. In the Tameside situation, with which this amendment is specifically designed to deal, there are two important principles at stake. One cannot really judge a situation fairly or objectively unless one gives full weight to both.
  First, there is a matter of paramount importance, which was referred to at Question Time, namely, that those who are elected on an explicit manifesto should fulfil the promises made therein.
  Mr. Mike Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman describe, for the benefit of the House, exactly what he means by an explicit manifesto, and particularly in circumstances dealing with education matters? Will he comment on the situation in which a Conservative candidate in the Tameside elections suggested changes in the education system but could not spell the word "policy" or write a grammatical letter that the parents could understand?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The first thing I did when this matter came to my attention—the Secretary of State was "resting" at the time—was to ask to see the manifesto. My apprenticeship was
  1230
  served under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that notable period at the Department of Education and Science which has become colloquially known as "the glorious reign"—a phrase invented by a Minister of State.
  In these controversial public issues, one must check the facts before one says or does anything. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) that I checked the exact words in the general manifesto issued on behalf of the Conservative Group. That said quite explicitly:
  "The present comprehensive system will not be implemented."
  Mr. Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the rest of that passage.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to go on reading extracts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He has mixed up two documents and is referring to another document, of which I have a copy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] It is issued by an individual councillor and was not a group manifesto. I am not trying to catch out the hon. Gentleman. That is the situation. I have a copy of that document, and it contains a spelling mistake. We do not know whether it is a spelling mistake by the printers or by the author. I remember saying in the House not so long ago that I was not responsible for the orthography of Press notices. That word appeared in Hansard as "authography". Even the hon. Member for Rossendale could not hold me responsible for that. It is the group manifesto that is important.
  The second point is that the education of children should not be disturbed. Unfortunately, we are in a political situation in which the education of children is frequently disturbed, but that is not of our choosing. That is why I have continually made the point to the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would be willing to reach a reasonable agreement on these problems if the Secretary of State would allow a dialogue to be initiated on the subject of selection. We cannot have a dialogue if we regard selection in itself as an ultimate and absolute evil. One can only have an unconditional surrender one way or the other. If one looked at the question rationally and said that there might be a place for

  1231
  selection in a mainly comprehensive system, one would be in business, and would not face this kind of confrontation, which is not of our choosing. But if the alternative is to abandon all variety in schools and to commit ourselves wholly and totally to a system that is now subject to widespread criticism, we can only continue our battle.
  It is important to examine the situation at Tameside in greater detail in order to grasp the need for this new clause. The situation there was that under the previous Labour administration proposals were prepared to go comprehensive. The five existing grammar schools were to go, two sixth-form colleges were to be set up, and 11 to 16 all-through comprehensive schools were to be established in the existing secondary modern schools and in certain grammar schools. That is where the first fault occurred.
  That scheme was pushed forward by the then administration with undue haste, in the knowledge that an election was in the offing and that there might well be a change of administration. They were perfectly entitled to take that view and to act upon it, but it would have been a more reasonable attitude to say "We know there is this likelihood of a change. We know that it is a central plank in the platform of the alternative administration not to implement the comprehensive proposals, and we shall therefore wait to see what is the verdict of the electorate before we seek to push ahead with these proposals." That is a reasonable point to make. I make it because too often in the Press the Conservative administration there has been represented as irresponsibly overturning an established system. That is not the case, because a blueprint for a system was pushed forward with a measure of irresponsibility by the previous administration.
  5.0 p.m.
  When the change of control took place, naturally the Conservative council stuck to its election pledge. I have heard it is said in all seriousness that the council was behaving dishonourably in so doing because no one expected it to fulfil that election pledge. That is an extraordinary point to make. I hope that the vocation of politics—which is the highest vocation a person can fill—has not reached such a point of degradation that people feel
  1232
  that election pledges can be totally unobserved.
  Mr. Noble: Would not the hon. Member agree that, as well as putting forward a negative proposal not to do something, a political party has the responsibility to put forward a positive proposal and to say that it will do something? In these circumstances, it would appear that the Conservative administration did not do this in Tameside because it had not discussed any proposals in council. It had never discussed any long-term proposals. Its short-term proposals were not to implement the comprehensive scheme. Surely it is political dishonesty not to put forward an alternative.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: A pledge not to implement the comprehensive proposals implied a system of maintaining selective schools, but it was right for the council not to commit itself at that point to any particular method of selection. It was right that the council should have freedom to manoeuvre and to examine the situation when it got into office. The council has been faced with continual difficulties in fulfilling its pledge although it has been very flexible in its approach. The hon. Member for Rossendale laughs, but the council's first reaction was to introduce an 11-plus examination at short notice. When members of the council approached me, I pointed out to them that as far as the Conservative Party nationally was concerned the restoration of an 11-plus examination was not an essential part of our education policy. The hon. Gentleman has heard this often enough in Committee. We are not tied to any particular method of selection any more than we are tied to a general system of selection. We believe in a system of progressive selection—that is, selection at 11, 12, 13 and 14 by a diversity of methods. We believe that examinations, reports of teachers and guided parental choice all have their part to play in this process.
  The Tameside council showed its flexibility in that it was prepared to say that the 11-plus was not an essential part of its policy and it was prepared to abandon it and come up with an alternative scheme. There were local problems involved in the situation, which the new clause is designed to deal with specifically. Notably among these problems is the position of teachers.

  1233
  Arrangements and contracts had been made with the teachers which guaranteed them a certain increase in salary because of the positions they were taking up in comprehensive schools. There would have been problems of breach of contract if those undertakings had not been fulfilled. It was the council's decision to honour the contracts with the teachers, because just as it is wrong for children to suffer, it is also wrong for teachers to suffer because of political changes. Therefore, it was right that in the new situation the contracts should be honoured.
  However, a situation of doubt is created by this kind of thing, and it is that situation which the new clause is intended to remedy. It provides that in circumstances such as those which arose in Tameside, where contracts were arranged on the basis of a situation which had totally changed by the time the contracts were due to come into operation, legal liability should cease. This is a perfectly reasonable change to make in the law. It would be unreasonable to make its operation in any way retrospective, but to create a new contractural situation in which the parties know their legal rights and obligations is something which is in a quite different category.
  The purpose of the new clause is precisely to resolve that dilemma. I hope that, although it cannot help directly in the present situation because it is not retrospective, it will help in situations in the future, and it will help in Tameside to resolve the dispute in an amicable and reasonable way. One must recognise that if this dispute develops into a major confrontation there is only one certain result—that the education of the children will suffffer. That is why the rôle of the Secretary of State is so important, because he has the opportunity, when he sees the representatives of Tameside, to act as a peacemaker. He can put his political and doctrinal views to one side and seek a solution which is in the best interests of everyone there—the councillors with their election pledges, the teachers with their proper concern for educational values, and, above all, the children. The exact proposals put forward by the Tameside authority seem to me to provide the basis for a reasonable settlement.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How does the new clause affect the position concerning the appointment of teachers? Suppose that I had applied for a teaching position in one of the new comprehensive schools when the previous authority was in office. I would have to hand in my notice, at my present employment in another school or with another authority. The new clause says that a new appointment to a new authority is not valid until the proposals under Section 13 and the rest have been established. How would I get on? Would I have to leave my previous employer in limbo and say that I might have a new job but that I could not be quite sure because it would depend on what happened?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the new clause is passed, it will create a new situation.
  Mr. Mulley indicated assent.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's Pauline conversion.
  Mr. Mulley: We want to mark our appreciation of the hon. Member's touch of modesty.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I probably contracted it from looking at the right hon. Gentleman.
  A new situation would be created, because there would be new rules. It would be an elementary rule of common sense that one did not give up one's existing appointment until the new appointment had been confirmed. It would be the same situation as that which faces any hon. Member seeking a safer seat. He would be unwise to renounce his present seat until he had been adopted in the new constituency. That is an elementary rule of self-preservation and common sense.
  The Tameside authority has proposed that the existing status of all secondary schools would be temporarily maintained, whether those schools were comprehensive, secondary modern or grammar. This is not therefore an anti-comprehensive proposal. Sixth form colleges would not be established, but the five grammar schools would continue to cater for children aged between 11 and 18.
  Children in their final year at primary school, who had already been allocated a

  1235
  place at secondary school, would go to that school subject only to the eception that new allocations would be required to provide an intake of children in the Ashton and Hyde grammar schools, which would be done away with under the proposals put forward by the previous administration. That would therefore be an increase in opportunity, and more grammar school places would be available. Allocation of these places would be on the basis not of examination but of professional guidance and parental choice. An appeals procedure would be established for parents dissatisfied with their child's original or new allocation. For those where no new allocation would be possible the original allocation would be honoured.
  The Tameside proposal would mean that no child's education need be disturbed unless at the wish of the parent or child concerned, so the proposals do not create any kind of educational chaos. They provide a revised opportunity to parents who are dissatisfied with the existing allocation to have a fresh allocation, and they seek to provide extra grammar school places.
  Mr. Clement Freud: What would be the benefit to children to be taught by an insecure gang of provisionally appointed teachers?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that situation would confer much advantage on anyone. It has no application to this case. The security of both teachers and children is taken care of. The hon. Member's nightmare vision is confined to his fevered fantasies.
  I come to the question of those who have been offered places at sixth form colleges. This is an important consideration, which the Secretary of State will be thinking about tomorrow. First, existing grammar school pupils would remain at their present schools, so that they would not have to change schools or go to sixth form colleges. There would be less disturbance for them, because they could continue at those schools. Existing secondary modern pupils seeking A-level courses would be offered equivalent courses in the sixth forms of existing grammar schools, so that their position would be protected.
  The existing secondary modern pupil seeking O levels or CSE levels would re-
  1236
  main at their present schools or be offered places at the existing grammar schools. I think that shows that many of the fears that have been expressed have been based on false assumptions and false premises. It is right to have these fears, and I make no accusation about those who are concerned because I, too, was most anxious.
  Under the revised scheme, subject to modifications that the Secretary of State may suggest, there is room for a reasonable settlement that would protect not the rights of the councillors but the rights of the electorate and the duties of the councillors to abide by the pledge which they made and the platform on which they were elected. It is a settlement that would safeguard the educational future of the children concerned because everyone in this House is obviously deeply concerned on that score. It would also protect the position of the teachers.
  I saw the teachers when I went to Tameside. Like other groups, they are divided on this issue. Some of the teachers' unions support the council, while others do not. I am sure that the teachers would agree that the determination of policy must rest with the authority. Of course it is right that the teachers should express their views on educational matters that are within their competence, but in the last analysis responsibility for the decision and the right to make a decision must be with the local education authority. If it is not we shall have a system of anarchy in the schools, where teachers would supplant the local education authorities. There must be a balance in this matter, and the purpose of the clause is to achieve a better balance.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mulley: I appreciate that my remarks may not end this discussion, but it may be convenient if I put some thoughts before the House at this point. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) raised a number of aspects that I cannot pursue. For example, it would be wrong for me to express views about the efforts of Conservatives who seek to switch their seats to safer constituencies. That is a field in which I have no knowledge or experience, but they are ethics that I would not want to export into other fields of activity.
  The other aspect that I should resist the temptation to say much about is the situation that has inspired or at least had

  1237
  some part to play in the drafting of this new clause. I refer to the situation in the metropolitan district of Tameside. Obviously, whatever view the House may take of this clause it would not be relevant to the current situation of the contracts that that authority has made with teachers unless we were to seek to give retrospective effect to it. That is not something that I could recommend to the House.
  We could, perhaps, rush the Bill through so that it could have a relevance in the Tameside situation. That is a proposition that I should be willing to examine with some sympathy.
  There are problems in the current operation of the Section 13 procedure. Quite obviously the council does not seek new appointments or make them until its proposals for a new school or for a significant change in a school that require Section 13 approval have actually received that approval. But under the present arrangements councils are not obliged to give effect to proposals that they or their predecessors have made.
  That is clearly a problem and that is why we are seeking in the Bill to remedy the situation. Clause 4 requires councils to carry out such proposals as have been approved by the Secretary of State. In that way we seek to remedy the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford rightly drew attention. I hope that when we discuss Clause 4 we shall have the Opposition's support.
  Dr. Hampson: How does the Secretary of State square that remark with the many times that his party has justified its Left-wing programme of nationalisation on the grounds that it was in its manifesto? Such proposals were different from those which the previous Tory Government were to pursue.
  Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) should try to contain himself. I have not yet come to the subject of manifestos or anything of that kind. I am trying to point out that we are closing the gap between seeking proposals for a new school, or a change of status of a school, and the present situation, in which a council can decline to carry out the powers for which it has sought authority. That gap will be closed by Clause 4.
  1238
  I do not wish to give a view on the merits of the Tameside situation until the Tameside council, which is meeting this afternoon, has expressed its views to me. I hope that it will do that tomorrow. I am sure that it will wish to put me in the picture about its teachers' contracts.
  Dr. Hampson Dr. Hampson rose—
  Mr. Mulley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ripon but it will only prolong the debate if hon. Members try to make speeches when I am in the middle of mine.
  Dr. Hampson: Even if Clause 4 were implemented, it is not right to say that it would close the gap. At most it would only reduce or narrow it.
  Mr. Mulley: We can discuss that subject later. We can effectively deal with the difficulty to which the new clause is directed—namely, that staff can be appointed when the school is not in a position to employ staff.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that the period from 11th November, when the approval was given to the Tameside scheme, to the beginning of May, when the elections were held, was so short as to justify a criticism that the council acted with undue haste. I take his point. The matter has been raised in discussion about the decision of the present council. I also take note of the hon. Gentleman's recommendation of the council for its flexibility. I take particular note of that commendation, because it comes from a master of intellectual gymnastics and therefore it has weight.
  New Clause 26, about transport, surprised me because it was in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford and tabled after he sought assurances that any new arrangements for transport would not penalise parents sending their children to denominational schools. That clause would put the whole burden on those parents. The hon. Member has obviously had second thoughts, and I accept his flexibility.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but the matter has nothing to do with my intellectual flexibility; it has to do with the rigidity of the rules of the House. The clause, as originally drafted, was out

  1239
  of order. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his speculation, and I recommend him to stick closely to the amendment under discussion.
  Mr. Mulley: It is the oldest political trick in the game to say "do not do as I do, but do as I say". However, I stand corrected. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman thinks it right that additional burdens should be placed on parents who seek to send their children to denominational schools.
  The House should reject the new clause on the grounds of principle and practice. The hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke of tyranny and freedom. I have always believed that freedom of contract was a vital part of our English law and liberty. Equally, I have always believed that local education authorities and teacher associations and trade unions should be able to make contracts without those contracts being prescribed especially for teachers by an Act of Parliament.
  Without any amendment of the law it is open to an employer and prospective employee to make a provisional contract, or agree to any other conditions in the normal way. It would be repugnant to write a provision of that kind into our law. In practice it would create chaos.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade teachers with established posts in one authority or school to seek other appointments or promotion, if such appointments could be cancelled at short notice. A teacher who had only a provisional agreement or contract to move to a new post in a new school would not feel able to do other than give provisional notice of his intention to quit his present post. That situation would create a chain reaction throughout the education system. It would be prejudicial to young prospective teachers in training colleges, because authorities would not know whether teachers were to leave and they would therefore not know whether there would be vacancies. That would be an appalling provision to put on to the statute book.
  If that is to be the new workers' charter that the Opposition have in mind I hope that it will be given the widest possible publicity. It is repugnant to anyone who believes in the freedom of
  1240
  contract and in negotiations between trade unions and employers. Such contracts should not be interfered with by an Act of Parliament. The Opposition's doctrine deserves wide publicity, and teacher's associations should be fully aware of the Opposition's policy. I am sure that all of them would wish to express strong objections to it.
  Opposition Members have wept crocodile tears about the powers of local authorities and local democracy, yet they propose this unwarranted interference with the rights of local authorities in terms of the type of contracts that they can make. The proposal is preposterous. It is typical of the Opposition's attitude to the Bill that we should begin the afternoon with a proposition of that character.
  There is no reason in principle or practice to commend the clause, and I hope that the House will reject it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: It lies ill in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to castigate my hon. Friend on those grounds when the whole Bill is a dictation to local authorities.
  Mr. Mulley: I admit that this is a new relationship between central and local government, but the proposals in the Bill are a mere molehill of interference with local authorities compared with the mountain of proposals to interfere with them contained in the numerous new clauses and amendments, totalling about 250. Not one of them is a Government amendment or new clause. If we accepted many of them, there would be no freedom for local education authorities.
  On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope that the teachers' organisations to which the Secretary of State obviously addressed some of his remarks will note the very bad attendance on the Government Benches.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There are only seven Labour Back Benchers present.
  Mr. Montgomery: A party that will have people believe that it is the only party to care about education has no more than 13 Members present. I am curious to know where the hon. Members representing Tameside are.
  Mr. Mulley: Three of my hon. Friends representing Tameside constituencies are Ministers, and therefore cannot take part in this debate. One of them is here. I have received representations from my hon. Friends concerned on behalf of their constituents, but one of them is engaged in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Montgomery: We realise that Ministers from other Departments cannot take part in the debate, but as the new clause was specifically directed to the Tameside problem, they could at least have listened to the views of the House on this important issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) deployed a very good, logical case. He made it clear that the reason for the new clause is largely the disgraceful behaviour of the previous local council in Tame-side. With a piece of typical skulduggery, when it realised that it would lose the local elections in May it produced new contracts for teachers before the current contracts had expired. That was unreasonable behaviour—a deliberate attempt to make life as difficult as possible for the newly-elected Conservative council.
  Listening to some of the Socialists in Tameside, one might feel that the newly-elected council was behaving outrageously. One might get the impression that as a result of their action children are being uprooted from their schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. The previous council rushed through a plan for comprehensive education that had been approved by the Secretary of State but not implemented. When the local elections were fought on Tameside on 6th May, the Conservatives fought on a clear manifesto that if they gained control they would not continue with the plans for compulsory reorganisation. Their actions so far are perfectly justified. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) wants to interrupt, I am prepared to give way.
  Mr. Noble: I cannot bear to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. His pedagogic gems are leaving us all agog.
  Mr. Montgomery: If that is so, I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman has time to chat to his neighbour so much. I am surprised that he is not hanging on
  1242
  my every word, as he did in Committee. Obviously, he did not learn very much there.
  The importance of the clause is that it would ensure that the actions of the previous Labour council could not be repeated. It would make a new teacher contract provisional upon the creation of a new post to which it applied, and in the event of that new post or school not materialising the new contract would be null and void.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was right to underline the fact that a local council has the right to decide what its policy should be. That is what local and central government are all about. What would happen if the Government decided to do something and the unions then said that they would not implement the policy that the Government were putting through in Westminster? The Government's attitude would he very different from their attitude on Tameside.
  People have different views, but nobody will convince me that every teacher in Tameside is opposed to what the new Conservative council is doing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman watched last week's edition of the TV programme "This Week", in which we had some marvellous shots of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) addressing a meeting of parents in the Tameside area. There was also a startling confession by a headmaster who was violently opposed to what the Conservative council was doing. When my hon. Friend interrupted him to ask what he thought about the way in which parents had voted in the local elections, the worthy headmaster said that he was not interested in how they voted. That was seen by millions of people. It is disgraceful that the wishes of parents should be summarily dismissed in that way by that headmaster because the views of a majority of parents on education in Tame-side did not coincide with his.
  I hope that when the Secretary of State meets the representatives from Tameside tomorrow he will uphold local democracy and adhere to the view that what people decide in local elections should be upheld by the central Government. Otherwise, there is no point in having any more local elections. We may as well sit back and

  1243
  let this Government decide everything that happens in local authorities throughout the country.
  I was not particularly disappointed by the Secretary of State's speech. It was the sort of speech I thought we should hear from him. I am sorry that, having listened only to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, the Secretary of State is asking the House to reject the clause. Although my hon. Friend made a very convincing speech, I am sure that there will be other convincing speeches from the Opposition Benches. I hope that as the debate continues more and more of my hon. Friends will make an extremely good case for the clause, and that we shall have a change of heart by the Government.
  Mr. Noble: It has been very interesting to listen to the contributions of Conservative Members. I understand that the Opposition's leading spokesman, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), unfortunately does not have experience as a parent or experience in local authority affairs, and perhaps does not quite understand the significance of all the pressures and tensions that the wrecking activities of his party colleagues in Tameside have caused in that area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) suffers from some of the same disabilities, though at least he does not lack the experience of being deeply involved in the affairs of an education committee.
  Perhaps we can bring some sense to the debate. I should like first to state my interest as a parent. I have a child in a grammar school—[Interruption.]the last intake before reorganisation. I have a younger child in a comprehensive school and another child in a primary school. Having been the chairman of an education committee. I can understand some of the problems faced by parents and teachers in Tameside.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Noble: Not yet.
  Mr. Peter Morrison Mr. Peter Morrison rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed.
  Mr. Noble: Let us dispel the argument that a majority of parents voted in favour of this piece of Tory skulduggery. The turnout in the election was only about 35 per cent. and the overall majority was only about 18 votes. The Tories can hardly claim that as an overwhelming victory. There were other issues in the election. I think that the key issue was green belt policy. Hon. Members who know only a little about Tameside may not be aware that the green belt policy is a burning issue in the area. That determined people's votes. If hon. Members opposite had attended the number of meetings that I have attended in Tameside and had talked to parents in the area, they would know that there would not be a majority even of 18 if the elections were held again today and the Tory plans were known. In fact, those plans are still not really known, because they are still being debated, weeks after the election.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: If the hon. Member advocates comprehensive education to the extent that we heard in Committee, why does he send his child to a grammar school? He states that the overall majority for the Conservatives was 18 votes, but his Government say they have a majority in the House despite receiving the votes of only 29 per cent. of the electorate at the last General Election. The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself again.
  Mr. Noble: My daughter attends a senior high school in a comprehensive system. She just happened to be in the last selective intake. That disposes of that point.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford seemed obsessed with "due procedures". The due procedures in Tameside are that the chairman of the education committee and one of his colleagues are sending letters to parents on unofficial paper from an estate agent's office because there has not yet been a meeting of the committee. The authority by which he is acting may be somewhat doubtful.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Noble: I have already given way. I want to finish this point.
  I have seen the uncertainty being caused by the present situation. I have

  1245
  seen a child crying because she did not know which school she was going to. I have seen childden told that they are to take the 11 plus one week and then told that it will be the following week, and then told that the exam is off. If that is the kind of progress that this wafer-thin majority is bringing from the Conservative Party, the parents of Tameside do not want to know it.
  Many technical problems are being caused in Tameside. What will be done about the allocation of children to Ashton and Hyde Grammar Schools, where I understand there are 180 places for boys but only 60 places for girls?
  Are the Opposition happy with a situation in which the parents of an 11year-old girl in Tameside will not be able to secure a place for her? Is that the kind of system of which they approve? Is that what this great advance in education proposed by the Tories means?
  This new clause is about relations with the teachers. I discovered that one of the most arduous and difficult jobs on an education committee was to recruit high-quality teachers. What will be the position of an education authority trying to recruit high-quality teachers whose contracts may be declared null and void? It will not be possible to attract the necessary quality of teachers, especially when schools are changing their character.
  5.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) referred to the problems of authorities employing teachers now. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chelmsford to say that teachers should not cancel their contracts with one authority until they have another job, but those authorities will be wanting to replace those teachers. The Opposition are creating a bureaucratic nightmare.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford admitted in Committee that education was for the benefit of children but that high morale among teachers was essential if children were to receive any benefit. What kind of morale will there be if teachers have no guarantee that their contracts will be honoured?
  We understand the Tory attitude to trade unions. Tories do not understand what the trade union movement stands
  1246
  for, particularly among teachers. If the amendment is passed, the effect on relations between employing authorities and the NUT and other unions will be disastrous.
  I accept the Opposition's claim that not all teachers are in favour of our proposals, but late last month the National Association of Head Teachers described the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in colourful terms, as a morbid misdiagnoser of education ills.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend got jolly good results as a headmaster.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Lady knows her hon. Friend so well that she must have gone to one of his schools.
  The National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters, the Union of Women Teachers and the NUT all support the proposals of the labour administration. They have made it clear that they regard it as being far too late to reverse the procedures of secondary reorganisation.
  I asked the hon. Member for Brent, North in Committee at what stage he would draw the line and say it was too late to unscramble a scheme for reorganisation. Would it be when 1,000 teachers had been appointed and schools allocated in circumstances where about 90 per cent. of parents got their first choice and 96 per cent. their first or second choice? We had to conclude that the hon. Gentleman might say it was too late, at two or three minutes to 9 o'clock on the day that the children were due to start school under the new system.
  The hon. Member is nodding his head. He admits it. The Opposition have no concern for the welfare of children. They are concerned simply with the maintenance of an elitist system, and their argument about parental choice falls to the ground in circumstances like those in Tameside, where more parents are satisfied with the choice of their children's school than would be possible under any system of selection—which is not parental choice, but teacher or examination selection.
  Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I tell the hon. Member for Rossendale, Mr. Noble), whose speech I am privileged to follow, that I am also a parent. I also tell the hon. Gentleman that I was the head of

  1247
  a school in the area that he represents. There was a queue to get into that school, although at the time, strangely enough, it was not selective. On the Opposition side of the House there is plenty of experience of selective and non-selective schools, in one way and another.
  It seems that to an extent Tameside holds the interest of the House this afternoon, but the clause could affect other matters outside the Tameside situation. If a good comprehensive school system is to be introduced, it needs long planning; it is not the sort of thing that can be rushed through. Where possible, it should be done with the general agreement of all parties in the area concerned. If that is not done, someone is always forced to give way. The more that one party tries to drive through such a measure the more likely it is that there will be a backlash the other way. Labour Members may say that the present situation is a backlash, but others may consider it a return to sanity. However, if one party tries to drive through such a measure, irrespective of the views of others, there is bound to be a blacklash, unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, there is unconditional surrender by one side.
  I believe that Questions were asked this afternoon about teacher unemployment. That is something that concerns both sides of the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Rossendale, I do not believe that concern and compassion exist on only me side of the House. It is a shortsighted view that the recognition of full truth and morality exists only on the Labour Benches, and that those on the Conservative Benches are not privileged to experience in any way a degree of concern. It is fair to say that we argue about what we think is best for children, but it is not fair to say that we are not concerned about children, that we are child beaters and wife beaters with demoniac memories and a total lack of compassion.
  If there is a plan that is it to continue over five years, a falling birth rate can cause a change that may make it necessary to retract contracts. We sympathise to an extent with the Secretary of State for Education and Science for having to deal with teacher unemployment, although we should like him to do rather more about it. The present situation arose because
  1248
  over four or five years there has been a change in the birth rate. The questions of teacher recruitment and teacher training have followed.
  If, over five years of an original plan, or three years after consultation first took place, there is a falling birth rate, the plans that were set up will have to be changed, otherwise there will be empty places in the schools. In those circumstances it would be sensible to take back the Section 13 plans and to say "The circumstances have changed; we must do something about it".
  Perhaps I should mention, for the sake of those who do not know, that Tameside is near Manchester, and on the Cheshire side. It does not help matters to call the area Tameside as many think that it is an area south of the Thames. That is thought to be the case by many who were not privileged to be born in the North. In fact, it is on the outskirts of Manchester. The direct grant schools in Manchester face the decision whether to go into the State system completely or to stay separate and independent. It is a decision that will affect a number of children entering schools in that area. It may well mean an alteration in the Section 13 plans.
  Similarly, the movement or non-movement provisions—this is something that we shall discuss at a later stage—that allow or do not allow parents to move their children across boundaries, can affect recruitment. That is not a matter that concerns only Tameside, with which the hon. Member for Rossendale appears to be obsessed. My hon. Friends and I recognise that there are other issues. We have put forward the clause to try to help authorities, to enable them to adjust their Section 13 plans according to the circumstances, which may well change from the time that the plans were made.
  Perhaps I should take up what the hon. Member for Tameside said about the Tameside situation. I had not intended to deal specifically with Tameside. Another matter that required a change in the Section 13 plans was political control. Before the change in political control it was the intention of the Conservatives to hold back the comprehensive scheme due to take place in September. The people in the area, including members of the Labour Party, knew that that

  1249
  was the Conservative plan. Could those concerned not have waited to see what the electorate thought about their plans? Was it that the Labour Party feared the result?
  From some of the statements that I have read it seemed that the intention was to get the scheme through before the electorate could comment. After all, it was only last November that the Section 13 notice was accepted. It was known that an election was approaching and that the majority was narrow.
  It seems that one of the main planks in local democracy is participation. It is a concept that Labour Members talk about and sometimes froth about. If participation means something, surely the election was an opportunity to ask the electorate "Do you want the Section 13 notice implemented?". That should have been done, if local democracy meant anything. Are the people allowed to vote only on issues that do not really matter? Perhaps dustbins do matter—indeed, my wife takes the view that it matters if they are not collected—but are people to be allowed to vote only on sanitation and parks, for example? Are they not allowed to vote on issues such as the education of children, the sale of council housing and other matters that involve general participation? It is the control of personal life that concerns the ordinary person.
  However, the election was held. The information came to me—I have checked my letters this afternoon—that some of the notices of the allocation of pupils went out two days before the municipal election. Similarly, I believe that in some areas certain authorities controlled by different parties sent out rate demands either before or after the elections, according to the effect that they would have on the voting. That is a terrible state of affairs, and one that I must speak against wherever it takes place. The fact is that the notices of allocation went out only two days before the elections. It was not a matter of the Joint Four not being warned.
  The professional body of teachers in the area was warned in January that the scheme was being rushed through and that there should be a delay only until the decision was announced.
  Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the letters went second-class they probably did not arrive after two days?
  Dr. Boyson: The depth of thought of my hon. Friend's intervention has quite staggered me. What if they were posted on Saturday, after the lunch time post? If that happened, perhaps some are still being delivered. However, I was told that the notices went out only two days before the election was held. The result of the election was that a Conservative majority was elected in Tameside.
  Surprise, surprise, the Conservative majority intended to carry out its manifesto. The general public complain that both major parties sometimes do not carry out their manifestos. It is said that they change them immediately on taking office. The belief in politicians has apparently declined because of that attitude on the part of the general public. Surely the Conservative majority should receive the acclaim of Labour as well as Conservative Members in its determination to carry out its manifesto and to make local democracy a reality. There had been consultation and acceptance, and the Conservative majority intended to honour its manifesto, as I honour my own pledges.
  Surely the Labour representatives should have taken the view "We have lost. That is it. We shall come back next year. That is the game." The whistle had been blown, as it blew for Manchester United. I was at the stadium, as were many others. Surely, Labour representatives should have recognised that the whistle had blown and that they would have to wait for another year, just like Manchester United. Indeed, there was better behaviour at the stadium than was displayed by Labour representatives in Tameside.
  6.0 p.m.
  They suggested flexibility. At the beginning they said that they would put back the 11-plus test. That is probably one of the most effective tests ever known. Most people do not like it. It is a test to which I do not want to return. But it cannot be faulted compared with other tests for choosing people for jobs.
  The teachers would not co-operate. They are presumably local authority employees. We were told by the Secretary of State at Question Time, I think,

  1251
  about the great glory of the freedom of local authorities to decide how many teachers they should employ.
  Where was the flexibility? Was any flexibility shown by the teachers? Did they say "We realise that you have won the election. We do not want the 11-plus back. Surely we can do it in some other way, so that you can fulfil your mandate." It would have been honourable to say "The 11-plus is out. We do not like it. We shall do it if we must, but we prefer some form of guided choice." There was no stonewalling on one side, but there was complete stonewalling on the other side.
  The Conservative council decided to offer the 240 places in the grammar schools to the 3,000 children in the area, through their parents. That seemed sensible. It could have been done in a week. The teachers were asked to cooperate, but they refused.
  I wonder whether we have local government or workers soviets ruling in Tameside. I am sure that the view of hon. Members on the Government Benches would have been different if a Labour council had been elected. But if the bell tolls for one side, it also tolls for the other. The teachers said that they would not co-operate.
  If any offer had been made, saying, in effect "If you had called your council meeting and then said either that the 11-plus is back or guided parental choice is back and that a letter would be sent out immediately," the whole attitude would have been different. But that, to my knowledge, has never been said. It was not indicated to me when I met certain teachers' leaders at that time.
  Mr. Mulley: This is an important point. I am merely seeking information. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that this issue was of concern at the time of the election. Was a commitment made to restore the 11-plus or guided parental choice? There is a vast difference between the two, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows from his background in education.
  Dr. Boyson: That is a fair question. If it helps the information not only of the Secretary of State, but of the House, I must give it. I hope that certain
  1252
  Members already have the information. The commitment was to keep the grammar schools without saying how selection was to take place. One way was the 11-plus. Another way was guided parental choice, or parents applying and the heads of the schools selecting the children. That has been done in other grammar schools. Again, there was no co-operation. There was a refusal by NALGO to send out the letters. The leader of the council had to pay £300 in sending out the letters.
  Were the parents indignant? Did they put the letters in the dustbin, or did they reply? There was to be genuine participation of the kind that the Tribune Group would like from what I hear of the mutterings opposite.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a former headmaster, tell us what participation he had in his school during his term of office? My guess is that he had absolutely none.
  Dr. Boyson: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman, but it would take an hour or two. If there were the same degree of participation by the Labour Party, it might be a better party. I recommend a book which, by accident, I have with me. That will tell the hon. Gentleman in detail what he wants to know, and I am sure that he will gain a great deal from it. However, I must not be led astray.
  About £300 was spent in sending out the letters. What did the parents do? This is what participation is about. Did they reject those letters, or did they do something about them? Within two days of the 3,000 letters being sent out, there were 700 replies. The letters did not say "Tell us whether you like what we are doing." They said "If you do not like the school to which your child has been allocated and you would like another school, either a grammar school place or transfer to another secondary modern school or transfer from one grammar school to another, send back the details to us." The replies were to go to a private house. They could not be sent to the town hall. There were 700 replies within two days.
  We talk about parental choice. If these things give bureaucrats nightmares, I like giving them nightmares. I am concerned about personal participation. It

  1253
  was said that 82 per cent. of people got their first choice. Of course they did if they were told that the local school was the only school available. But when it came to genuine parental choice, 700 parents replied within two days. It is interesting that letters came back asking for transfers from one secondary modern school to another, because of certain specialities in those schools.
  I must not go further into the Tameside situation, except to say that I believe that the Conservative council has been as reasonable as it could be—it has certainly been more flexible than I should have been—in changing the system. If it is not successful in keeping its schools, having been elected on that mandate so recently, local democracy will suffer a defeat.
  There is pressure from the power groups. This year it is the trade unions; next year it may be the employers; the year after that it may be another group. The hon. Member for Rossendale said that some people do not know the trade unions. My father was a trade union secretary and my grandfather was blackballed for setting up a union in the mills in Rossendale. I am sure that he would never have been in favour of closed shops. That is the issue on Tameside.
  I think that the situation would have been made easier if teachers' contracts had been provisional until the schools opened. Most teachers worked in the area. Not many were brought in from outside. Most of them had new contracts and were guaranteed their jobs.
  The new clause does not fire the anger of the Tameside situation one way or the other. Here is a triumph of decocracy which we should all cheer and possibly sing about. If there had been provisional contracts the situation might have been easier. I am glad that the Conservative council is fully pledged to fulfil the present contracts. At least 20,000 teachers were on safeguarded contracts after reorganisation. There is no difference between teachers in Tameside remaining on safeguarded contracts and others elsewhere doing so.
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the speed with which we are galloping on, will you now tell us at what time we are likely
  1254
  to get your second selection of amendments, which was promised at 6 o'clock?
  Mr. Speaker: I have been working on that selection since the House saw me last. The list will be put up, although incomplete, in a short while. There will be enough to keep the House going for the time being.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having gone into the "No" Lobby, I found that there were no copies of your original list of selection. They seem to be very popular. I wonder whether you can arrange for further copies to be placed in the "No" Lobby.
  Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to be able to say "Yes, certainly."
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The imagination boggles, Mr. Speaker, at the task with which you have been confronted in selecting the new clauses and amendments. The Opposition have bombarded us with so many amendments that they have flung the printers and the House into considerable confusion, as was evidenced earlier. As there are so many amendments—
  Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose—
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is an inveterate interrupter. It would be more helpful if he prepared a speech instead of interrupting. In view of the fact that there are so many amendments, Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly, and I hope that the Opposition will emulate my example.
  Talking about confusion, I have the general impression that the Opposition's colleagues in Tameside seem to have flung education into some confusion there and that the Tories in general are acutely embarrassed by what their colleagues have done. In fact, the Press seems to have indicated that there was an all-out row between the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I am sure that it is not true, but it is possible. The hon. Member for Brent, North underestimates his capacity.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford enmeshed his argumentation in such a web of verbiage that it was very difficult to understand the point of the new clause. We were told repeatedly in Committee by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and

  1255
  his colleagues that they believed in comprehensive education. It was a very long Committee stage, as befits the most important Education Bill ever to come before this House. That is why it has been opposed so strongly by the Opposition. We were told in Committee that the Tories believed in comprehensive education. Over and over again, when baited in Committee by Members on the Government side, the hon. Member for Chelmsford said "We believe in comprehensive education."'
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Chelmsford repeatedly made that point.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish only to inquire whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is giving way.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman at this moment is not giving way. If the hon. Member for Chelmsford is to deny what he said in Committee—that the Tories now believe in comprehensive education—I shall give way.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take that offer to give way unconditionally, without the proviso. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but the attitude of the official Opposition—although there are varieties of view within the party on this matter —is that we are in favour of a variety of schools and that we are in no way against comprehensive schools. What we are against is their imposition everywhere without regard to educational situations, financial resources or parental wishes.
  Mr. Flannery: I deliberately put the Gentleman on the horns of a dilemma. Despite what he has just said, I say again that repeatedly he left us with the impression that the Conservative Party had now changed its attitude and was in favour of comprehensive education. If that is so, the Tories on Tameside seem to have reverted to the viewpoint to which the hon. Gentleman himself seems to have reverted since the Committee stage of the Bill. Surely the conduct of the Tories
  1256
  on Tameside is worthy of examination in view of the embarrassment they have caused to the Opposition Front Bench.
  6.15 p.m.
  When the Tories are defeated on the question of the 11-plus—they are being defeated on it and will be increasingly defeated as the British people realise the value of comprehensive education—they try other methods. They become desperate and, therefore, they thrash around wildly. They try any method whatsoever, such as, for instance, the reintroduction of selection in places where it has ceased to operate.
  The Bill is an attempt to democratise education. It is not doctrinaire, despite the accusation which has been made It is the Opposition, who fight against comprehensive education under any terms whatsoever, who are doctrinaire.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford said in his opening speech that education in our country had grown organically. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that within the framework of organic growth there are on occasion leaps forward, and that those leaps forward take place when a Bill on education is passed. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but they will laugh on the other side of their faces when the Bill is passed, as it will be, and their defeat is complete.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary schools were the first on the scene. Many of us recall that the so-called public schools came very early. They were not public schools then and they are not now. They were charitable foundations and, like all charitable foundations, they have been taken over by the wealthy and the privileged, who will fight to the death to preserve them. They know that comprehensive education as it develops will bring into question those bastions of privilege, owned basically by the Conservative Party.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the education of children should not be disturbed. As an ex-teacher and head teacher, I ask in all conscience whether there is any more dreadful disturbance for the education system than the 11-plus examination. Surely there is no greater disturbance in the system to any child than that examination. The 11-plus hangs like a cloud over children and parents.

  1257
  The new clause talks about the contracts of teachers and says that they should be provisional. The word "provisional" these days has a certain connotation, and it is almost as wrecking as those other Provisionals.
  What would this provisional contract mean for teachers? If a teacher had a contract which was provisional on the setting up of a building, it would throw the security of the teaching profession, the security of the parents and, therefore, the security of the whole education system into question. Everyone within the education system would be full of worry and fear that it would be disrupted, in precisely the same way as the Tame-side Tories are disrupting the education system there.
  I think that centrally the Tories are acutely embarrassed by the conduct of their colleagues at Tameside, who are doing something against the wishes of the parents, against the wishes of the children and against the wishes of the entire educational set-up.
  I have just been reading part of the discussions. Incidentally, when the plans were made the Labour Party was not in a majority in the education committee. However, do hon. Members know that out of 1,000 teachers with 1,000 contracts in that general area, 890 have got new contracts? Therefore, 890 lives were in question in terms of their security of tenure. That is the position of the Tameside Tories regarding the children taught by the 890 teachers, their security of tenure, and the parents who have bought school uniforms. Their security of tenure was all in question. That, for doctrinaire reasons, was the position into which the Tameside Tories, backed up by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, who now want to push through this ridiculous new clause, pushed the people of Tameside.
  I need say no more than that the clause should be thrown out for the disruptive and disturbing proposal that it is.
  Mr. Cormack: The House has listened to an impassioned and, I suggest, very stupid speech. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says "From a stupid headmaster". All I would say is that perhaps the electors' loss is the children's gain.
  1258
  We are debating an unnecessary proposal, because the Bill is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) talked about the vast number of amendments on the Notice Paper and castigated the Opposition for tabling them. He talked about the new clause in vitriolic terms. However, there would be no need for any new clauses or amendments, and no need to have this debate and to detain the House, had not the Government adopted the most doctrinaire attitude towards education that we have ever seen.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of the Bill being a great Education Bill. It is the worst disservice to education ever perpetrated by legislators anywhere.
  Mr. Flannery: Bad for the elitists.
  Mr. Cormack: It is bad for quality. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who wax eloquent about their defence of democracy do not defend democracy at all. Their attitude is a positive disservice to democracy. When they stand up, as did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), and talk as though they have the prerogative of right and compassion and the monopoly of wisdom, what sort of service to democracy are they performing? When they attempt to subvert the due processes of democracy—which is what this debate is all about—what sort of service to democracy are they performing?
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have just seen it.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend intervenes eloquently. We have indeed seen it. We have seen it in many guises in recent weeks, in relation to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry—but I must not disgress because Mr. Speaker might rule me out of order. However, what we have seen in this instance is a group of democratically-elected local representatives presenting a programme to the people and saying to them "We wish to retain the grammar schools in Tameside".
  Mr. Noble: They did not.
  Mr. Cormack: Oh, yes, they did. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that they did. That was one of the main planks in their platform. They went to the electorate and said "We do not like what is being done, and we are offering

  1259
  you a constructive alternative". The electorate opted for the constructive alternative. The electorate returned to power a group of men and women who were dedicated to a particular policy. The hon. Member for Rossendale talked about the number of people who voted. I hope that all of us, in every part of the House, regret the low percentage turn-out at local government elections. Tameside was certainly not bottom of the list this year in the percentage of people who went to the polls—far from it. The percentage of people who voted in Tameside was infinitely greater than the percentage of people who take part in most union elections. One does not hear turn-outs for union elections castigated by those on Government Benches.
  The Government are putting before the House of Commons and the people of Britain a highly contentious measure. They did not have the support of the majority of the people in Britain. They claim—it is a valid democratic claim in this regard—that more people voted for their policies than for any others and that, therefore, they have a right to promote the Bill. Therefore, let not the hon. Member for Rossendale and his hon. Friends pretend that we are being undemocratic or that the councillors and the electorate of Tameside are being undemocratic, because if they do that they will be guilty of a gross distortion of the facts.
  Mr. Noble: I was previously replying to a claim made by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues that a majority of parents in Tameside had expressed their wishes. That was not so. Even if more than half of the electorate had voted, and voted in favour, we would still not know, as the ballot was secret, whether a majority of parents had stated their wishes. I was simply replying to that point.
  Mr. Cormack: I do not think that there is a qualitative franchise in this country and that one would have to say whether or not one was a parent, any more than there is such a thing in the House of Commons. Every person who voted in Tameside had a right to take part in the election. Most of the electors voted for a party which has a policy
  1260
  that we are now discussing, which has provoked my hon. Friends into putting forward the new clause.
  It is a great sadness to be in the House of Commons when people are accusing locally, democratically-elected councillors of being undemocratic for doing what they are doing.
  Mr. Noble: Unreasonably.
  Mr. Cormack: No, not unreasonably at all. It is far more unreasonable to say "You shall have a comprehensive school and no other school". It is far more unreasonable to take that line than to take the line that we take—that in diversity and variety there is richness and strength.
  That is the line that we on the Conservative Benches have taken throughout. It has been the consistent policy of the Conservative Party. There have been Conservative authorities, including a former Conservative authority in my county, Staffordshire, which have proposed and implemented comprehensive schemes. Some of us may not altogether have agreed with or liked what they did, but they did it. We did not question their democratic credentials. Nor did we, as a party, say that every local authority should or should not take a particular line. That is what the Bill is all about, and that is why the new clause is of particular significance and importance.
  Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend might be interested in the fact that it was a Conservative-controlled West Riding authority which after 1945, under a Labour Minister, resisted a circular demanding a tripartite system and opted for a multilateral system, which in turn evolved into a middle system. This matter therefore relates to the freedom of local authorities to act against the diktats of the central Government, allowing experimentation and a flexibility that has been so productive.
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for his intervention. It is a proper constructive regard for local circumstances that is absolutely basic to a good education system. Who can have that proper constructive regard for local circumstances better than people who live in the locality concerned? This mucking around with buildings and the artificial creation of

  1261
  entities is a most terrible disservice to the education ideal and a disservice to quality.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale was good enough to tell us where his children went to school. I do not blame him for having a daughter at a grammar school. Indeed, I congratulate him.
  Mr. Noble: There was no choice.
  Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman has a daughter at a grammar school and another child at a comprehensive school, presumably he could have opted for both of them to go to the comprehensive school. He has a choice, and I welcome it.
  Mr. Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present earlier. The point I made was that my daughter was the last in a selective intake, because there was no option then, and she is now attending a senior comprehensive high school.
  Mr. Cormack: I should have thought that, as the other child was at a comprehensive school, there was probably an option. But it does not matter. Many Labour Members have had the privilege of sending their children to grammar schools. That is a very good thing.
  Mr. Flannery: Did the hon. Gentleman take the 11-plus?
  Mr. Cormack: Yes, indeed, and I was educated in the State system—and I have taught, just as the hon. Gentleman has done. If one looks through the list of worthy Cabinet Ministers and members of the present Government, one is surprised to see how many of them derived great benefit from the richness and diversity of our education system. I took the trouble today to look them all up. Perhaps at a later stage my colleagues might be interested in a breakdown of the educational background of all the members of the Government, because we have a long night ahead of us.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that two-thirds of his colleagues had the benefit of private education. One is therefore a little concerned about the competence with which they
  1262
  manage to speak on matters of public education bearing in mind that they did not opt for the public system.
  Mr. Cormack: What an entirely irrelevant and stupid intervention.
  Mr. Flannery: It has upset the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cormack: It has not upset me at all. I happen to be in the one-third which is obviously entitled to wear the halo. But I really fail to see what relevance this has.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman fails to see the relevance of the very relevant contribution which my hon. Friend made. That is what I am saying.
  Mr. Cormack: It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman has an Irish name. It is a pity that the rules of the House—
  Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I forget, has referred to the fact that I have an Irish name. I must confess that I have, but I did not expect it to be referred to.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Not everyone can have a Welsh name.
  Mr. Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we all stand suitably rebuked and deeply envious.
  To return to the main point of the debate—
  Mr. Flannery: Withdraw.
  Mr. Cormack: I cannot withdraw the hon. Gentleman's name, although he could do so by deed poll if he chose to do so.
  We believe in quality, and we are attempting to salvage from this destructive and damaging Bill a few vestiges of quality. There would be no need for this new clause and this long night of debate had not the Government behaved with such doctrinaire intolerance. That is what this is all about. The Government have said to the people of the country, be they teachers, parents or children, "One form of secondary education you shall have and no other". But before the Bill has passed into law, and because one local authority has had the guts and the gumption to stand up for its rights and the rights of its electors, parents

  1263
  and children, the Government are resisting an entirely sensible new clause.
  If the Minister had said that he did not like the drafting and that he would like to take the clause away and improve upon it with the help of the parliamentary draftsmen, that would have been a constructive reply and the debate could have ended over an hour ago. But he did not say that. He pretended that we were the ones who were subverting democracy and attacking local authority freedom and undermining the rights and privileges of parents and teachers and all the rest. That is not the case.
  The Bill is destructive and damaging. I hope that, as the night progresses, we shall fight it to the bitter end and that the Government will at least have the grace and the good sense to give proper Government time to debate it. To give one day to debate a measure like this on Report is the grossest insult to parliamentary democracy that I can imagine.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I was interested in some of the comments made from the Conservative Benches in regard to the new clause, because there is a lot of history on the subject of comprehensive education. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to the right of the local education authority to determine policy. He made a particularly strong point about teachers not usurping the authority of the local education committee. That is absolutely right.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to that approach. I say "conversion" because I am reminded that he was a Minister in the Government of 1970 to 1974 in regard to education, and I am reminded of some of the statements he made during that period. I remember, sometimes with bitter experience, being involved as Chairman of the Liverpool Secondary Reorganisation Committee and Deputy-Chairman of the Liverpool Education Committee, coming to London on a deputation to make representations to the then Conservative Secretary of State, now Leader of the Conservative Opposition, in regard to Liverpool Education Committee's plans for comprehensive secondary reorganisation.
  We were told then that, although the Labour Party was elected as the majority
  1264
  party in the city council, it was not possible for it to claim that it had a a mandate to pursue a policy of comprehensive reorganisation. We were told that because there was a parents' protest committee in Liverpool—a background or "front" for the Conservative Party—and because of the existence of several thousands of signatures on petitions and anxiety among teachers, we could not claim that we had the right to pursue the policy upon which we were elected. However, we are now in a different situation.
  Tameside has the right to carry out the policies it is pursuing because, miraculously, the position has changed. It has a mandate from the electorate. That reminds me of the arguments in which the Conservative Party has been involved witht two voices over a period in regard to the participation of teachers in reorganisation plans within local authorities. At one stage it was argued by Conservatives Members that the teachers must be heard. That was during a situation when quite a number of teachers' organisations in various parts of the country were raising doubts about the change to comprehensive schools. However, because of the passage of time, that is not now the case. The majority of teachers' organisations in most of the larger city areas are in favour of reorganisation on comprehensive lines. We do not hear any more clamour about seeking to hear the teachers on this particular subject.
  I think it was the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who made some mocking comments about participation. The one thing we are not seeking any longer is the participation of teachers in regard to the whole problem of comprehensive reorganisation. If we were interested in hearing the teachers, we would realise how absurd the new clause is. In most reorganisation schemes that local education authorities have, one of the things for which the teachers have argued forcibly is co-operation and collaboration between the teachers' unions and the education authorities in regard to the staffing of the schools which are to be set up under reorganisation.
  Dr. Hampson Dr. Hampson rose—
  Mr. Thorne: When it comes to determining the appointment of headmasters

  1265
  and deputy headmasters, heads of department and teachers, any local education authority worth its salt will set up a working party with the teachers' unions to discuss how the local teachers will get priority in the filling of posts. Naturally reorganisation is likely to bring shifts in specialisms and needs, and possibly, therefore, redundancy among teachers. The whole matter is therefore discussed by the LEA and the various teachers' organisations.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thorne: Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity for this kind of clause. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to establish the right sort of involvement in regard to putting into practice the policy of the Bill. The right sort of involvement is a continuous dialogue between the LEAs and the teachers' unions.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thorne: I shall not give way. For the last hour and a half, on this one clause, Tory Members have made all the points that they now seem to want to make in my speech. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to see me finish this speech with no interruptions. Hon. Members opposite can make their own speeches. Some of them make abysmal speeches, but that is a matter for them. I am not prepared to hear any interruptions of my speech. The points of hon. Members opposite have been summed up already ad nauseam.
  Following Tameside, the Tory Party is now anxious for us to accept that a local authority when elected has the right to carry out a policy irrespective of the teachers, the parents or the children, who will now be subjected to the same system of selection as they completely rejected 10 years ago, saying that LEAs which have been elected to bring in comprehensive education should tone down their activities, listen to parents, teachers and others and delay implementation of the system.
  That is what the new clause and 100 other clauses and amendments are about. Even if we do not finish until 1.30 p.m. tomorrow, I hope that we shall reject
  1266
  them all and get on with introducing real comprehensive education.
  Mr. Angus Maude: During the few minutes for which I wish to detain the House, I shall try, unlike many hon. Members who have preceded me, to stick as far as possible to the new clause under discussion.
  The debate has covered a wide area, with a number of hon. Members getting off their chests a number of ancient war cries and flaunting a few flags. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), for example, would not permit my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) to correct him on a point of fact—a fairly typical method of behaviour. The hon. Member was talking about consultation. In the case of Tame-side, the Joint Four was perfectly willing to discuss and work out a solution and discussions took place, but the NUT, backed by NALGO, refused any form of discussion. It is therefore absurd to talk about consultation, participation and continuous dialogue with people who will not talk.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Secretary of State began by saying that the new clause was repugnant to him and his hon. Friends in principle and practice, and then he diverged a little to try to persuade us that it was in any case unnecessary because, he said, by the time Clause 4 was in operation the gap would have been closed and cases like Tameside would not arise again. We do not believe that that is so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is at least an argument that it will not be so.
  The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there will be elections next year for various local authorities which are local education authorities. He surely cannot say now that by the time the Bill has become law, when local authorities begin to submit proposals to him, every set of proposals will have been accepted and will be operative by the time of the next county council elections. He would be very unwise to say so.
  Suppose that a local authority submits proposals to the Secretary of State. Without rejecting them out of hand, he comments on them and sends them back. It would be a strange Government Department which returned the proposals

  1267
  within a week. Therefore, time will elapse. The right hon. Gentleman's comments have then to go through the whole procedure of an education committee and the full council and have to be returned to him. It is therefore possible—this is the hypothesis on which the new clause is based—that the Tameside situation could arise again next year in the local elections.
  Mr. Mulley: This is a very important point. If the House will agree, it might be more convenient for me to reply when the hon. Gentleman has finished developing it.
  Mr. Maude: If that is possible, even in theory, it is not logical to say that our new clause must be unnecessary and is not needed.
  The new clause is needed if there is the slightest chance that the Tameside situation will arise again. Let us not lose sight of the fact of what actually happened on Tameside. We are not discussing whether comprehensive education is good or bad, whether one side or the other has a monopoly of virtue. I have noticed that Labour Members, as is so often the case when they discuss polemical politics, say that the Conservative Party, whether nationally or locally, is behaving in a doctrinaire fashion if it endeavours to ensure a variety of schools throughout the country and in each area but that the Labour Party is not behaving in a doctrinaire fashion if it seeks to impose one kind of school on every area. This selective use of the word "doctrinaire" reminds me of the bishop who said to one of his colleagues, "Orthodoxy, my Lord, is my doxy; heterodoxy is someone else's doxy".
  The Labour Party uses the word "doctrinaire" in precisely that way. It is noticeable that when a Labour Government or a Labour council seek to reverse everything that a Conservative Government or a Conservative council have done, that is regarded as a perfectly logical, moral and undoctrinaire process. A Conservative Government or Conservative council are expected to swallow, absorb and continue to operate every Socialist measure of its predecessor. If that were to happen, there would be a continual trend to the Left until we were left with a totally Socialist society.
  1268
  It must be recognised that in a democracy there will be times when each side will want either to reverse or to modify the actions, proposals and institutions set up by their predecessors. The Secretary of State waxed extraordinarily indignant on a high moral tone. He said that the new clause was repugnant to the freedom of the individual and to the freedom of contract. We find it repugnant to the spirit of democracy that a local authority faced with defeat should try to outwit the electorate and thwart the electorate's will. We propose to shut one door in the face of those who are trying to thwart the democratic will of the electorate in some areas. Some hon. Gentlemen find that strange and wicked.
  Let us not forget the events at Tameside. A few days before the local government elections took place, the Labour-controlled council—clearly recognising that it was in danger of losing an election which the Conservatives fought on a policy of preserving the grammar schools in the area—sent out new contracts to teachers, involving, in some cases, upgrading their status and remuneration, to try to outflank the Conservative-controlled council which was about to succeed it and to prevent the Conservatives from carrying out the commitments on which they fought the election. With those events behind us, is it any wonder that we want to prevent that kind of blackmail—it was cheating, if not blackmail—taking place next year in the local government elections? That is the reason for the new clause.
  In seeking to persuade us that we should not press the new clause to a Division, the Government spokesman who replies must persuade us that that situation cannot arise before the Secretary of State has succeeded in imposing his will on every council in the country. The new clause is justified if there is any risk of its happening. It may happen again next year, before all the proposals have been studied and approved. If that is so, on past form there is every likelihood that a Labour-controlled authority somewhere will try the same trick. While that possibility exists, the new clause is needed and we shall press it to a Division.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: The Bill was described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough

  1269
  (Mr. Flannery) as a leap forward in a framework of organic growth. That is a strange concept. I do not think, if it is described in such graphic, if unliterary form, that it is likely to attract many members of the Opposition or the public. However, it raises questions—whether relating to leaps forward or leaps backward—which go well beyond education. Many people who will look with interest at the way in which Parliament determines the question on this new clause are concerned not primarily with education but with democracy and the way in which democratic procedures work in our country. The new clause is a means of protecting the exercise of democracy against the intrusion of fundamentally undemocratic procedures which are designed to impede the operation of the wish of the people expressed at a recent election.
  In support of thwarting the will of the people we listened to some of the most specious and dubious constitutional doctrine that we have heard for a long time. I thought it little short of ludicrous —were it not tragic—that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) should say that there was justification for the obstruction of the policy of the newly elected Tameside council. He told the House solemnly—or with as much solemnity as he could muster for so ludicrous a point—that the election was fought on the issue of the green belt. Whether or not it was fought on that issue, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will win many black belts for intellectual judo, although he may well reach the heights in respect of the accolades that are available for tiresome gymnastics.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said time and again that if the Tories won in Tameside it would be as a result of the education policy they were putting to the electorate.
  Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance. That was apparent to the people concerned, even without the helpful confession to that effect by the hon. Member for Rossendale.
  In Tameside we are faced with an example of a trend that I should have thought was worrying to the people concerned with matters well beyond educa-
  1270
  tion. I refer to the tendency of bodies other than elected bodies to regard it as being their right to prevent the policy of an elected body being implemented. I regard that as a highly dangerous trend, to be resisted at all costs, whether the threat comes from a trade union, a group of teachers, an employers' organisation or a local crysanthemum society.
  If democracy is to be preserved, we must remember what it is. An election takes place, and the party that wins the election is entitled to carry out the policies that led to its electoral success. If that party is wise—and if it wishes to win not just one election but future elections—it will adopt a reasonable posture, to seek consultations and to follow a policy that accords with its ideological propensities and takes account of the practicalities of the situation. Although the elected body fails to follow that wise course, it still surely has the constitutional right to put forward the policy for which it is elected without being impeded by outside bodies. That is why we object to what took place at Tameside.
  Reference was made to trade unions and the trade union movement. I do not believe that those who seek to defend, on the part of those opposing the newly elected authority, what happened in Tameside, do a service to the trade union movement by involving it or referring to it in this argument. The rôle of the trade union movement, when it does its best for its members, is to engage in hard-fought negotiations—backed up, if we like, by the strike weapon—but not to seek to blackmail an elected body by the threat or exercise of industrial action against the wishes of the people expressed in an election. That is the central point, but there are several red herrings, to which I shall refer briefly.
  7.0 p.m.
  One red herring is that the authority is not obliged to carry out proposals that have been approved; there is the possibility that the proposals will lie on the stocks for a long time and there will be a gap. The Minister said that we need not deal with that by introducing the new clause, because it is covered by Clause 4.
  Clause 4 imposes a duty on a local authority to implement the proposals

  1271
  which have been approved by the Secretary of State, but no time limit is stated in the clause. All it provides is that if the local authority wilfully indicates that it has no intention of implementing the scheme that the Secretary of State has approved, the Secretary of State may take action either under Section 68 or through the courts to prevent that situation continuing. But there is no time limit.
  If the local authority, for prudential, arguable and justifiable reasons, even after the passage of the Bill, delays implementing the Secretary of State's proposals, the Secretary of State can do nothing unless the local authority has wilfully indicated that it is not doing what he wants. After all the sittings of the Committee, the Secretary of State still has not got his Bill right, and it is no argument to say that Clause 4 deals with the problem.
  The next red herring—an even redder and more tasty morsel than the one to which I have just referred—is the claim that the clause interferes with the freedom of contract, and that that is repugnant. Repugnant to what, we are not told. The word "repugnant" occurred twice in the Secretary of State's speech, but it was not related to any clear principle of law that even so uninitiated a lawyer as I have ever learnt.
  From the most cursory glance at the clause it is apparent beyond misrepresentation that all that is said is that the contract will be provisional. There is no interference with the freedom of contract in saying that. Every teacher who enters into a contract on that basis knows what he is entering into.
  There are thousands of ways in which contracts can be provisional. They can be stated to be provisional by agreement of the parties. They can be affected by frustration of contract under the 1943 Act. In a whole variety of ways the legislature has interfered, for good reasons or bad, in the concept of freedom of contract.
  The Conservatives are accused of being an old-fashioned, traditional party. Perhaps we should be more traditional, but I hardly believe that we shall ever seek to emulate the love of tradition of the Secretary of State, who would drag us
  1272
  back to a primitive, nineteenth-century view of the freedom of contract which even politicians of a far less radical hue than he felt should be mitigated from time to time in the light of modern conditions. Let us hear no more about freedom of contract. In any future reference to it, I suggest that there should be substituted the phrase "freedom of humbug".
  The Secretary of State came to the moment of truth when he said that the Bill introduced a new relationship between Government and local authorities. There he is dead right, but he has done that at the expense of the welfare of the children on whose behalf he is charged statutorily to act, and at the risk of destroying democracy and the principle of the rule of law.
  Mr. Mulley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the arguments put forward, particularly by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to a local chrysanthemum society which would have difficulty in arranging its affairs if it could make only provisional contracts that could be cancelled unilaterally by the other party. I realise the hon. Gentleman's distinguished legal background, but what seems to have escaped the notice of Opposition Members is that the clause seeks to impose on local education authorities and teachers a restriction that would prevent them, and them alone, from making binding contracts as to future conditions of employment. That is my reading of the clause. It would be wrong in any event to impose any such arrangements without consultation with all the trade unions concerned.
  The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) referred to the views of the Joint Four in Tameside, but he did not go so far as to say that the Joint Four would approve of legislation of this character which provided only for provisional contracts which, in the circumstances here envisaged, could by a process of law be declared null and void, with consequential effects on the individual teachers concerned and on the filling of vacancies, with all the uncertainty that would cause throughout the educational system.

  1273
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) said that perhaps I was a little hasty in advising the House to reject the clause. I certainly have not prejudged the Tameside situation. Perhaps I did jump to a conclusion on this new clause but no arguments have been put which persuade me to change my mind. The only way in which I might be able to achieve popularity with teachers would be if the clause were inserted in the Bill at the instance of the Conservative Opposition, because the teachers would be united in being totally opposed to it.
  The most remarkable comment I have ever heard in the House was made by the hon. Member for Brent, North. He said that he had been at Wembley Stadium watching Manchester United and that other people were present. That he could conceive of Manchester United playing at Wembley for his sole personal gratification shows an imagination which will no doubt lead people in the North to discount some of his other colourful utterances.
  Nothing that has been said in the debate has persuaded me to change my mind.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On the question of provisional or conditional contract, can he say what is wrong in principle with saying "If we build this school we will give you a job in it, but if we do not build this school we are unable to give you a job in it"? That is precisely the point behind the clause.
  Mr. Mulley: I was coming to that point, raised by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in connection with Clause 4. There is nothing in the law of the land as it stands at present to prevent such authorities and teachers as wish to do so from making provisional contracts, just as in the ordinary way of business one makes provisional arrangements. If it is freely agreed by both sides that it should be provisional, there is no harm in it and we do not need the new clause. It would prevent authorities and teachers from making binding arrangements in these circumstances.
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the point of Clause
  1274
  4 is not what inevitably it will mean next year, when further elections are held—and I might say that the metropolitan borough of Tameside, prior to the Labour council seeking Section 13 approval for its comprehensive proposals, was elected on a similar commitment and a similar manifesto. Next year in the counties there will be further elections. Under Clause 4, where a scheme has actually been approved there will be a duty to carry it through. In that sense, while the Bill, when it has become law, remains the law of the land, there will be a duty on the authority, and in that sense there will not be the difficulty which arises in present circumstances.
  Surely no authority, having put forward plans, would advertise posts for headmasters or specialist teachers or whatever else in a school which was to be built or reorganised until it had Section 13 approval. To do so would be irresponsible. Only after it had that approval could an authority make contracts of that kind. If Clause 4 goes through, as I hope, it would in those circumstances place a duty on the authority properly to carry out and implement Section 13.
  Mr. Maude: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I do not think he has yet made good his point that the operation of Clause 4 could prevent a situation such as took place at Tameside happening in another local authority before the operation of the Bill has become universal. There must be a time lag while proposals are being considered, and it may very well be that another local authority, fearing to lose control, might take precisely the same steps as Tameside just before an election.
  Mr. Mulley: I appreciate that until the Bill becomes law the situation in Tameside could recur, but unless the Bill becomes law, even if the new clause were to be included, the new clause is a nullity.
  We had a surprising revelation from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—a statement of the obvious which could not be denied —that if we had no Bill before us there would be no amendments. That we do not dispute. Equally, unless the Bill becomes law, any amendments or new clauses that are added to it will not become law either. Therefore, if Clause

  1275
  4 were enacted it would make the new clause otiose. If we were to put in the new clause, it would make me popular with teachers but it would not be necessary if, as I hope and believe, the Bill becomes law. I hope, therefore, that the
  House will proceed to decide this matter, and then we may make more progress.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 311.

  Division No. 167.]

  AYES

  [7.14 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Alison, Michael

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrindle, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Fry, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacGregor, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Banks, Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

  Bell, Ronald

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Madel, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Goodhart, Phillp

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Benyon, W.

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Biffen, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maude, Angus

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Blaker, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mawby, Ray

  Body, Richard

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hall, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brittan, Leon

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Hector

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morgan, Geraint

  Buck, Antony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Budgen, Nick

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hawkina, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mudd, David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Heseltine, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Channon, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neubert, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Philip

  Newton, Tony

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nott, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clegg, Walter

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Cockcroft, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Osborn, John

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Cope, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Cordle, John H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir Timorthy

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff MW)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Farr, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lawsen, Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lloyd, Ian

  Sainsbury, Tim

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Stanley, John

  Wakeham, John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Stokes, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Storehouse, Rt Hon John

  Walters, Dennis

  Shepherd, Colin

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shersby, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Silvester, Fred

  Teylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wells, John

  Sims, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Spence, John

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Younger, Hon George

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Sproat, Iain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John Corrie.

  Stainton, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Howella, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Allaun, Frank

  Deakins, Eric

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Huckfield, Les

  Archer, Peter

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Nwport)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hunter, Adam

  Atkinson, Norman

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dunn, James A.

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bates, Alf

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Janner, Greville

  Bean, R. E.

  Eadie, Alex

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beith, A. J.

  Edge, Geoff

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  John, Brynmor

  Bishop, E. S.

  English, Michael

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ennals, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Evans John (Newton)

  Judd, Frank

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bradley, Tom

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kelley, Richard

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lambie, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Buchanan, Richard

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ford, Ben

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Campbell, Ian

  Forrester, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Lee, John

  Cant, R. B.

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Carter, Ray

  Freud, Clement

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lewis, Ron (Carllsle)

  Cartwright, John

  George, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Litterick, Tom

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ginsburg, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Golding, John

  Luard, Evan

  Cohen, Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Coleman, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Concannon, J. D.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McElhone, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Crimond, Rt Hon J.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hardy, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harper, Joseph

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Cronin, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Magee, Bryan

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hatton, Frank

  Mahon, Simon

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hooley, Frank

  Marquand, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Horam, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies Ifor (Gower)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  1278

  1279

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Tinn, James

  Mendelson, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tomlinson, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Tomney, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Torney, Tom

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Roper, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Molloy, William

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Moonman, Eric

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Moyle, Roland

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Selby, Harry

  Watkins, David

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Watkinson, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Weetch, Ken

  Noble, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Weitzman, David

  Oakes, Gordon

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Silverman, Julius

  Whillock, William

  Ovenden, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Owen, Dr David

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Padley, Walter

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Park, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Parker, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Parry, Robert

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Stoddart, David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  stott, Roger

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Penhaligon, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Woodall, Alec

  Perry, Ernest

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  Woof, Robert

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Prescott, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mr. Ted Graham and Mr. Peter Snape.

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  STANDARDS OF LITERACY AND NUMERACY TO BE ACHIEVED BY PUPILS
  '(1) The Secretary of State shall establish national minimum standards of literacy and numeracy to be attained by all pupils who have reached the age of ten years and six months, or at an age to be determined by the Secretary of State, and local authorities are required to establish a system of testing pupils who have attained the age of ten years and six months as soon as may be after the attainment of that age, such tests to include an assessment of the standard of literacy and numeracy achieved by the pupil in order to establish the child's future educational requirements.
  (2) Where a pupil's attainment in literacy and numeracy at that age specified is found to be below the minimum national standards established by the Secretary of State under this section, the local authority shall be required to provide immediate remedial education, and transfer to secondary school, or to the senior school in a middle school system, may be delayed for up to one year as may be deemed necessary in order to raise the standard of attainment in literacy and numeracy for that
  1280
  child to the minimum national standard prior to entry'.—[Dr. Boyson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.30 p.m.
  Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This clause follows on remarks made at Question Time today relating to the basic standards of literacy and numeracy, on which there were comments from both sides of the House. The clause would bring in, through the Secretary of State, an examination involving a minimum standard test at the age of 10 years and six months for all children and would afterwards make provision for those who did not attain the minimum hurdle at that time.
  It is important to say that this is not a new 11-plus test, which was a selective test and became unpopular because of the very fact that it was selective. This is a minimum hurdle, which all children without brain damage and who are well taught and have attended school regularly should attain by the age of 10 years and six months. If they do not attain it by that

  1281
  age they will be severely handicapped when they go on to secondary school. One can almost say that they will be unable to fulfil the requirements for secondary school education.
  When the first move was made for State education between 1870 and 1876, it was presumed in evidence to the Newcastle Commission that minimum standards would be in force in all schools, so that it would not matter which school a child attended. When people use as a credit the difference in methods, approach, and achievement between schools it makes it more essential that, however different schools are in approach and method, they should all fulfil a minimum requirement of basic education. It is immoral and against all the feelings of those who brought in State education, to compel compulsory attendance without any guarantee of minimum standards, irrespective of the school that the child is attending. The indignation felt by many parents at the moment comes from the fact that children are often directed to neighbourhood primary and secondary schools whose standards are low, and they know that later their children's opportunities will be lessened because of the deprivation of those schools.
  The test that we are proposing is not just another 11-plus test, with a starred honours board on the wall; it means that pupils and schools who do not attain these minimum standards will be picked out. If schools are doing badly year after year, with a low achievement rate, something should be done about them. Only two years ago the Labour Party said, in a Green Paper, that something would have to be done about the schools in which children were consistently under-achieving, compared with other schools.
  We see and hear a lot about falling standards in our schools today; indeed, the Bennett Report itself refers to the fact that standards in many schools are such that hon. Members would not want to send their children to those schools. Yet they are State schools, for which local authorities and ultimately the Government in some way are responsible.
  We read that between 1964 and 1972 there was a falling-off in literacy among children who were tested. This falling off was about three and a half months in reading ability at the age of 11. Similar findings came from the Horton
  1282
  Report, in Wales, and even the Bullock Report. Sometimes the Bullock Report reads like a Chinese Maoist book. I am only a simple layman but as far as I can decipher what it means I believe that it says that children are not doing as well as they did before.
  Mr. Freud: I am concerned about the hon. Member calling himself "a simple layman". If that is what he is, what are the rest of us?
  Dr. Boyson: My description of the Liberal Party would have to be different from that which I apply to the rest of the House. I shall not go into that now. But we are simple laymen; we are not psychological testers. Even after long experience in education, I still regard myself as a simple layman. We find that more and more people, when talking about education, talk in terms that we do not understand. The Bullock Committee attained this achievement in as short a time as anyone. But I am not concerned about them; I am concerned about what the children of ordinary parents achieve in schools, and that should be the concern of every hon. Member.
  One might ask why we need these tests. In one sense the end of the 11-plus as a selective examination meant its end as an achievement examination. I refer here to the Bennett Report, which states that
  "The presence of a selective examination at the age of 11 is related to superior progress, particularly in reading, and most noticeably in informal classrooms."
  We treated the 11-plus examination like the plague, but although it may not have achieved an ideal selection it did lead to higher standards in informal schools. That is one of the few straight statements in the Bennett Report, and it is difficult to misinterpret it. Some people might not agree with it, but they could not misinterpret it. The end of the 11-plus examination does mean increased teacher freedom and freedom for heads to change their schools. But parents want stability in schools that their children are attending, and the disappearance of that test means a decline in standards.
  One often wonders what is being done by the large numbers of local inspectors and Government inspectors. Are they going into schools to see what is happening? Are they carrying out the normal tests? We had a report that said that

  1283
  local education authority inspectors spent only 5 per cent. of their time inspecting. If that is so, why call them inspectors? Why not call them by the name that is most appropriate to what they spend 95 per cent. of their time doing? We are Members of Parliament, and we certainly spend more than 5 per cent. of our time here. We often think, and our wives think, that we spend too much time here. I suggest that the Inspectorate should be called an Inspectorate only when it returns to inspecting schools and making sure there are proper achievements within them.
  There is a disagreement about formal and informal teaching methods. My view on this matter is that a brilliant teacher can teach a child by any method, but a poor teacher would have a riot with a dead rabbit. About 80 per cent. of teachers achieve good standards within a formal framework, but there has been a breakdown in that framework. If teachers teach in the way in which they believe and most enjoy, they are most likely to achieve results in the classroom, irrespective of the label that we put on the school structure. It is nothing to do with the age of the building or even the pupil/teacher ratio.
  This new clause is very important. It points the way to developments that should come. There is a test at 10 years and six months. Instead of writing off children who do not pass, which is what is happening now, something has to be achieved. If these children are fortunate they go to a school that is prepared to do something about them, but we cannot have children in non-streamed schools who are not up to normal reading and numerical standards at the age of 11. They will become bloody-minded and delinquent as they get left behind. Many of our problems arise from the fact that children are moved up automatically, irrespective of the standards that they achieve.
  We heard a lot about Tameside today on an earlier amendment, but in London, at one time, between one-quarter and one-third of the children transferring at 11 in divisions north of the river had to be given some form of remedial treatment before starting a normal secondary course. At Highbury Grove School, of which I have
  1284
  some knowledge, 85 of the 240 children who came were put in the remedial department for treatment for a year or longer, before they could cope with normal work and manage the normal secondary school curriculum. They are the ones we should be worrying about and passing Acts of Parliament to help. They are the problem. We should be concerned not with the organisation of schools but with the teaching in the classroom, the lack of achievement, and also with the satisfaction at the lack of achievement that exists in many of our cities with these kind of children.
  We can look back to former times and talk about the Industrial Revolution, which is so beloved of Left-wing agitators. They forget, of course, that it was the Industrial Revolution that put an end to chimney boys. Children who pass on to secondary schools and who cannot read and write are every bit the equal of the chimney boys of the nineteenth century. They suffer from what Jenks calls "intellectual poverty"—an inability to fit in with other children. It is that which adds to problems later in their lives, when we have difficulties over welfare, delinquency, and so on.
  Something must be done about these children. They could be transferred to schools with special remedial departments, but whatever is done, before they move on to ordinary secondary schools they must be brought up to the level of other children. It is no good Labour Members saying that these children are not left to sink, because many of them are. In some foreign countries and in some parts of this country there used to be special summer courses for children who were not up to standard at the age of 11. They had to reach that standard before they could enter secondary school. Crash courses were organised for two weeks in the summer, with teachers given extra money to do the job. It is true that education is short of money at present, but no money could be better spent than on ensuring that at the end of the summer these children could be moved into secondary schools with the appropriate standards of numeracy and literacy.
  This test at the age of 10½ is not simply another form of the 11-plus; it is an alarm bell, to show that something is wrong with some children and, in some cases, with certain schools. There is

  1285
  nothing party political in the suggestion, because all parties believe in some form of accountability in schools—some method of testing what has been achieved. This proposal would not merely test what had been achieved; it would ensure that children were brought up to the correct standard.
  This is not a high hurdle; it is something that all children with an IQ of 70 who are not educationally subnormal and are without brain damage could achieve by the age of 10½, given regular school attendance and minimal home support. It would show that the children were able to move to a secondary school not only because of their age but because they had achieved an adequate standard of literacy and numeracy.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has made an interesting contribution to the debate. The clause, however, is based on two faulty assumptions. The first, which the hon. Member hardly discussed, is that suitable tests which can be used in the way he suggests are agreed to exist. The second faulty assumption is not just that suitable methods exist for making national assessments but that their results should be applied in the way he proposes.
  The hon. Member referred to the Bullock Report. That report suggested that we need criteria for defining literacy and new monitoring arrangements. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up the assessment of performance unit. It will promote the development of suitable tests for both literacy and numeracy. The first part of the clause is therefore somewhat defective in assuming that tests have already been developed.
  I do not suggest, of course, that the Department is opposed to the establishment of adequate standards in schools. My right hon. Friend has made very plain, particularly over the past few weeks and in the setting up of the unit, that he is extremely concerned that adequate standards of education should be provided in all our schools. Where we disagree with the Conservatives is in the best way of seeking to obtain those standards.
  1286
  The most interesting question about the clause is whether it implies sonic kind of new 11-plus examination. There is a fascinating schizophrenia on the Conservative side in this matter. The Conservatives assure us that their party is not in favour of the 11-plus and that it recognises all the difficulties inherent in it, yet whenever they embark upon a discussion of this kind they cannot refrain from describing how admirable was the 11-plus and what good results it produced.
  7.45 p.m.
  The hon. Member produced a classic example of that when he quoted a section of the Bennett Report which refers to the progress of pupils in informal classes in a system where the 11-plus operated. But that applied only to three classes, which was not a particularly large sample from which to draw a conclusion, even if one accepts the straightforward proposition that the 11-plus contributed to higher standards of education, without examining other relevant factors. Those other factors are whether the children were practised in doing tests and whether the tests chosen gave an automatic preference to those children. Even if one accepted that proposition, three classes are not much of a sample from which to draw a conclusion.
  Dr. Boyson: I regret it if my bringing in informal education confused the issue. The message of the Bennett Report is that classes of any type which employed the 11-plus had higher standards than those which did not. In considering informal education, it is worth noting that the best informal teacher in the report had her own child in the class preparing to sit an examination that year.
  Miss Jackson: I made the point about the number of informal classes without accepting in any way the hon. Member's assumption that children in a class which operates the 11-plus perform better. Regard must be paid to the kind of tests involved. However, these are issues which are being carefully examined in the Department, and we are not leaping to any conclusions.
  Mr. Cormack: Would it not have been better to await the results of that examination before producing the Bill?
  Miss Jackson: No. This sort of research is carried out over a considerable period of years and we could not simply wait for the results of a particular research project.
  I do not wish to discuss the general merits of the 11-plus since the hon. Member for Brent, North assured us that it is not linked with the intentions of the new clause. He says that the clause relates to establishing some kind of national minimum standards. If one accepts that, one still faces the assumption that the only thing that was objectionable about the 11-plus was that it was part of a selective system and that there were not other aspects of the examination which caused it to become unpopular with parents, teachers and children—factors which led the Conservative Party to dissociate itself from that examination.
  Even if one accepted the case which has been made, the results of the kind of assessment that is proposed are likely to be just as bad. The results would be used just as rigidly to classify children as were the results of the 11-plus. The hon. Member for Brent, North is suggesting that children who fail the test should stay for a further full year in primary school. But what would happen to children who were borderline cases? What would happen to children who could be brought up to standard in a few weeks or months? Should they be compelled to stay at primary school for a further full year? If we accept that they should not do that, they would be moved to the secondary school at a time when their fellow pupils had already had some secondary education. Would they then be moved into the same class, where they would be already behind in a different way, or would they be confined to some form of remedial class?
  The hon. Gentleman has not thought through his case, nor has he examined what the effect would be on children when they eventually reach secondary school. He assumed that the test would be set at a level that any child would be able to pass. He has not considered who would decide when a child was ready for secondary school.
  I am concerned about what would happen to a child at the end of a year of remedial training in primary school. If the child still failed to meet the standard for secondary school, would that child
  1288
  stay on in primary school for a further period of remedial education? If ever a recipe was devised for perpetuating second-class education, this is it.
  One of the most difficult and abhorrent aspects of the proposal is the implication, intended or otherwise, that remedial education is suitably applied in primary school with the automatic stigma of separation from peers and education with younger children.
  The hon. Member for Brent, North spoke of the difficulties that many such children have in living in society. I do not accept that their difficulties in fitting in would be any less if they were kept down a year in a primary school when children of their own age were moving into secondary school. Efforts should be made at secondary school to help such children. Many Opposition Members believe that children who require any kind of remedial help should receive it in a separate environment, preferably in a separate school, but that view is not shared on this side of the House and in the education world generally. We feel that children will do better generally if they are kept with their peers and contemporaries, receiving part-time help to assist them to keep up. That is the fundamental difference of approach between the two sides.
  Of all the proposals along these lines, I find that those in the clause are the most damaging and the least helpful to the children concerned. We share the anxiety about and concern for standards, but we do not share the view that such classes will benefit the children who, I accept, the hon. Gentleman wishes to help.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady has referred to the problems of a young person who moves to secondary school a year late because he has been retained in junior school to do a year's remedial work. Will she tell the House what problems she thinks might result to that child if he went to secondary school unable to read or write properly? How could such a child go through secondary school without reading or writing properly? What would be the problems for the child when he left school?
  Miss Jackson: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) cannot have

  1289
  listened to what I said. I accept that there will be problems of adjustment for children who find it difficult to cope with secondary school work. We differ from the Opposition in our approach. Is it better to keep a child in primary school segregated from his friends because he is staying on another year and receiving remedial education, or is it better to give that child special help at secondary school? The hon. Gentleman is talking about children who need or receive a further full year in primary school. A child who did not need to stay down for a whole year would experience problems. There is a difference of approach which is to some extent based on the same concern, but I call on the House to reject the new clause.
  Mr. Freud: I have considerable respect for the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He is an original thinker on these matters. But the new clause does not take us away from the basic evils of the 11-plus, although I accept that it involves a different type of examination which is taken at 10½ years of age. It involves not so much selection but rejection or black-balling.
  The new clause provides that children who fail in literacy and numeracy will be subjected to the same pressures that we all objected to in the 11-plus, and the borderline cases will be subjected to the same coercion, bribes and rewards as were involved in the 11-plus.
  Mr. Cormack: Why does the hon. Member have to adopt that patronising approach to other people's children? When his own children passed the common entrance examination, he was pleased enough that they could go to Westminster.
  Mr. Freud: We are not talking about an entrance examination or private education. We are discussing a new clause which proposes a new age for a new examination which does not escape the evils of the 11-plus. The new clause seeks to formalise normality and pinpoint abnormality. That is why I am against it. Why do we need such a test? A child is an ongoing, living thing and there is no cut-off point. If a child needs help, it should be given from the day he goes to school—in fact, from the day he is born—until he no longer needs that help.
  1290
  What I am against in the new clause, however, is the idea that at the age of 10½ one goes into a remedial process machine to come out soon afterwards ready to join the other children.
  Anyone who argues about literacy and numeracy, looking at the Notice Paper and seeing that there are 95 new clauses and 158 amendments, that it is now 8 o'clock and that we are on only the second new clause, has every right to say that perhaps my numeracy should be examined. What I do not agree with is that it should be done at 10½ in one swoosh. That is why I shall certainly not vote for the new clause.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must declare a concern. I was for 13 years a teacher in London comprehensive schools. I believe that some of the concerns of Opposition Members do not have a realistic basis.
  I found the speech and the ideas of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) comparable with those of dear old Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I, and many of my colleagues who are now in schools, believe that he is often half right but that the other half is very badly wrong. There was the usual mixture in his speech.
  Where the hon. Gentleman is right is in saying that in the past few years there has, perhaps, not been sufficient attention in primary and secondary schools to the internal monitoring of basic educational attainments. I make a distinction between attainment and potential and the assumptions one makes about the future. The Conservative Party has assumed that attainment at a certain age is a reasonable premise for prognosis of future ability which it is not.
  Mr. John Stokes: As the party of private enterprise we all know that some can go to public school, university and business school and others can start on a barrow and hardly sign their name, yet still be highly successful.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has given away his case. Such a person may be highly successful in terms of competitive enterprise, but can he succeed if he has a talent to contribute cooperatively? That is just as important.
  Mr. Stokes: Verbiage.
  Mr. Spearing: It may be verbiage to the hon. Gentleman. I am not surprised, because he perhaps does not know the meaning of co-operation in society.
  Mr. Stokes: I have been in personnel work for 30 years.
  Mr. Spearing: If so, I hate to think of the staff relations the hon. Gentleman has left behind.
  Mr. Stokes: Withdraw.
  Mr. Spearing: I shall not follow up what the hon. Gentleman said, because I do not know the results of his efforts.
  Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about anything.
  Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman's delicacy of touch and diplomacy in his occupation are as he is now displaying them here, I am not sure that he will be very successful.
  The hon. Member for Brent, North talked about teaching methods in the formal framework. There may well be some agreement about that across the Floor. There have, perhaps, been too many winds of educational fashion in the last 10 or 15 years.
  Mr. Stokes: Hot air.
  Mr. Spearing: As a teacher, I have always said that one must advance in an island of formality, and then one may be able to reach any position of informality, once the pupils are ready, but one cannot impose ready-made systems, whether from inspectors, colleges of education or the Department.
  On the whole we have ignored the question of standards. I remember pressing the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) two or three years ago to instigate an inquiry into the standards of those leaving school, not having taken public examinations. It took a long time for her and the Department to get round to that. I knew, as did many teachers, that many pupils who did not take GCE or CSE in secondary schools were having a difficult time. That was largely the responsibility of the attitude of Conservative Members.
  I think that the Opposition would like to think twice about the attitude revealed
  1292
  by the clause, because of its implications. First, who is to decide what the standard is? Is it to be the local education authority, the head of the school, or the head of the secondary school? If the hon. Gentleman's logic is followed, it will before the head of the secondary school to say what standard he will accept. I do not think that even the Opposition would stand for that. If it is to be a Minister in the Department, it becomes a political issue. I do not think that it should become a political issue, even if it were agreed to be a professional issue.
  Dr. Boyson: They will have to be national standards. If they are to be accepted and if people are to know what they are, the Secretary of State will have to be responsible for them, but he does not need to apply them himself. He is responsible for many activities which he is not directing all the time, just as many other Ministers are. There must be a national way of setting this up, and then we can take it from there.
  Mr. Spearing: That sounds very fine, but the Minister is responsible in many ways for qualitative matters. The Education Act is full of words such as "sufficient" and "adequate". We can argue about what they mean. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are asking in the clause for something which is quantitative. One cannot say that the Secretary of State is responsible generally but that somebody else lays down the level. That is not a practical solution.
  Even if it were practical, let us look at the educational results. It would mean that in any primary school there would be some pupils who would not go with their peer groups, their friends, their cousins and others. They would have to stay down for a whole year in the primary school.
  Mr. Cormack: What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Spearing: The result for children in an ordinary primary school could be catastrophic for the rest of their lives. I ask Conservative Members to cast their minds back. They seem not to realise the effect on children of having to stay at the same school with a group a year younger when they have seen all their

  1293
  friends go on. The damage to the self-esteem and progress of the children would be very great.
  Mr. Cormack: This is pseudo-psychological claptrap. Cannot the hon. Gentleman think of the catastrophic damage if the child does not attain certain standards and becomes an adult illiterate?
  Mr. Spearing: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman has misjudged the logic. That is not the alternative, which is something much more constructive. With his Jekyll side, the hon. Member for Brent, North saw the secondary school as process as a conveyor belt. This attitude was that one did not put the product on the conveyor belt until it was ready baked. The idea of a comprehensive school is that it comprehends sufficient educational skills and offerings to produce in various ways that which fits the unique needs of every pupil within its walls. This is done irrespective of age, and there will be a proper environment to take pupils up to the standard we would wish.
  I was a tutor in a comprehensive school for 12 years and I had in my personal charge some pupils who went to university and others who left school almost illiterate. Hon. Members opposite may ask whether I had done my job properly, when children left school barely able to read and write, but in the cases which I recall pupils were taught to read in term time and forgot in the holidays. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have not come across that sort of situation. In the schools in which I worked I hope we had enough facilities to meet the needs of literacy, numeracy, manipulation and social needs, but even pupils who left with only a rudimentary knowledge of reading and writing left as reasonably rounded persons with a reasonable basis on which to pursue a reasonable life.
  Mr. Neil Macfarlane: At the outset of his speech the hon. Member indicated that he recognised the general decline in standards in primary and secondary education. What remedial course of action would he suggest if he does not approve of the new clause?
  Mr. Spearing: I think the hon. Member is putting words in my mouth. I did not say there had been a decline in standards. We can look at Hansard
  1294
  tomorrow, but I was saying that there had been a decline in the way in which we monitored the system. I refute the claim that standards have gone down. What has gone down is the way in which we internally monitor the attainments of pupils at any one age. I shall not give way again. I have given way enough and we should make progress.
  During the 13 years I taught in secondary schools, 12 years at one school and one year at another, a matter of particular concern was trying to provide for ordinary pupils who were not taking the public examinations. Our task was made very difficult because of the attitude of the Opposition and their like. Before 1944 secondary education was linked in the public mind to grammar schools and certain public schools which were highly selective in character. It was not geared to the general needs of most children.
  Since comprehensive schools started there has been an inbuilt, conservative approach on how secondary education should be organised. We have never developed a proper British rationale for secondary education. We have tried the pre-1944 system, which was a different system for a different age and different purposes.
  8.15 p.m.
  When Lord Boyle, well beloved or otherwise by hon. Members opposite, was Minister of Education he introduced the infamous Boyle's law and tried to increase the range of pay for teachers on the basis that the better teachers should get more. He broke the agreement between the NUT and the Burnham Committee in order to increase the grants to some teachers. Teachers taking exam classes were supposed to be superior and those with letters after their names got higher salaries. What happened to the ordinary pupils who were not taking the exams? The allowances went to exams and as the musical chairs developed and staff turnovers increased, the ordinary pupils lost out. This is one of the reasons we have not had from secondary schools the results we should have liked.
  We have never developed a proper secondary rationale because there has been an assumption that we have a conveyor belt on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Brent, North and based on a pre-1944 situation. We need to get away from that. We need to develop in

  1295
  secondary comprehensive schools skills and competencies to enable pupils to arrive at the attainments we would like them to achieve, and we need machinery and techniques designed for the job, and not those carried on as a result of pre-1944 practices.
  Mr. Stokes: I start by declaring two interests. I started my life as a schoolmaster for a happy year before the war and for 30 years since the war I have been in personnel and training work in industry and commerce.
  One of the errors that have been made in discussing the new clause and education generally is the assumption that education is everything in life. It is enormously important, but if one observes life, one finds that character, personality, imagination, courage, ability to get on with other people, and other personal qualities are as important as, if not more important than, purely intellectual gifts.
  It is important that our education system should be as sound as possible. I regret that there has been a diffidence —almost a conspiracy of silence—from the few speakers on the Government side about the grave decline in the standards of literacy and numeracy that have occurred in this nation over the last generation. One has only to ask employers, schoolmasters, or anyone who comes into contact with people to find out that many men and women cannot read or write well.
  I find that people who apply for jobs cannot spell or express themselves clearly. There are frequent crossings-out in their letters. If I made a crossing-out in a letter when I was younger, I started all over again.
  One hears of scientists and engineers who do not have the command of English that is essential in their jobs, especially if they wish to be supervisors or managers. We find sales people who are not able to speak even one foreign language. What a contrast that is to our competitors in Europe. The pronunciation of even common English words on radio and television is often quite appalling. It is strongly advisable for the parents of young children to keep them away from the box. They will not hear words pronounced properly.
  1296
  Bad spelling and punctuation are all too common. Knowledge of the liberal arts and general subjects—for example, religion, history and geography—is lamentable. The classics are almost unknown. Even in this honourable House, a Latin tag, even of the most common type, has to be translated. In the increasingly high standard of housing in which most people live today, we see the large fridge, the huge television box, the water softener and every other gadget. The only things that we do not see are the books that were to be seen in the old days.
  I believe that part of the failure is due to the lack of discipline in our schools and the new methods of teaching. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Hefter), whose English nationalism, on devolution, I so admire, say that he wanted children to be brought up with a sound knowledge of the three Rs and to be properly educated.
  Children need to be taught. They need to be made to learn. If not, they will never cope with the battle of life. It is on these simple and fundamental facts that the Government have failed. They tend to close their eyes. They have made no constructive suggestions. They say that all is marvellous, and that the jam is spread everywhere, but the jam is of such thinness that it can hardly be seen. In fact, it is full of turnips and not strawberries.
  I believe that it is necessary to have tests in life, and not just examinations. I fully agree that we may have to have headmasters' reports, interviews and various different schemes, but in the end we must try to measure ability. We cannot allow the present sloppiness that has crept in under the present Administration to continue. If we do, we shall fall even further behind our Continental neighbours.
  Miss Margaret Jackson: If we are talking about sloppiness, especially in our thought processes, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two factors in his speech. First, he claims that we have said that nothing is wrong with our standards of education. That is singularly inaccurate, as he will realise if he reads Hansard. We have made statements about the unwisdom of the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Brent,

  1297
  North (Dr. Boyson). It is inaccurate for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we have claimed that nothing is wrong. Secondly, I was fascinated by his references to the halcyon golden age to which he was looking back, in which every house was crammed with books and in which every child spoke more than one language. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman spent his childhood, but obviously it was in quite a different country from that in which I spent mine.
  Mr. Stokes: I am rather older than the charming young lady, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I was brought up in a country rectory, with village people. Certainly they knew the Authorised Version of the Bible. They knew the Book of Common Prayer. They knew Pilgrim's Progress and they knew the glorious history of our country by heart. Most of those things have been lost.
  In the days of which I am speaking the nation was far greater than it is today. The fact is that we have fallen behind the Continent. I saw France when it was in ruins. It has made a magnificent recovery. The hon. Lady cannot deny that, or laugh at it. If she examines the so-called old-fashioned and rigorous French education system, she will find that one of the results is that the French Foreign Office can make circles round ours, and certainly round our present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The French Civil Service and the French Government are, alas, greatly superior to ours. The standard of education is far higher in Europe. Almost any young man in Europe can speak three languages, whereas most Englishmen can barely speak their own language.
  Miss Joan Lestor Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)rose—
  Mr. Stokes: I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It is a great pity that in the village in which the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) was brought up there was not a copy of "Erskine May" to enable him to know when he was in order.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a minority of primary schoolchildren in my constituency can speak both Urdu and English?
  Mr. Stokes: I bow to the hon. Lady's ability as a teacher and to her erudition in Urdu and English, but I am still mainly concerned—I make no apology for this—with this country and with our decline.
  I believe that our decline is mainly moral, but it is to some extent educational. That is why my hon. Friends and I regard the Bill so seriously. That is why we intend to stay here all night, if necessary, and all tomorrow, to fight it, clause by clause.
  A further error that the Government make is to imagine that all education has to be clerical. It is vital to speak and write good English, but some people at the age of 15 or 16 find that their fulfilment and their abilities are rather greater in some other skill, such as—dare I say it—that of a craftsman. I am told by many industrialists that there is a far greater shortage of craftsmen than of clerks. Why should we not have more craftsmen and fewer of those who speak and write such had English? What has bedevilled the education system since the Government have been in power is their determination to turn this once renowned and respected old England into some sort of mindless mass of semi-educated people who know a little of something but nothing of anything that very much matters.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has attacked me in my personal and public life, and I think I am entitled to reply. I have spent many years trying to help young, middle-aged and older people in their careers. I have found that careers guidance and advice on the choice of careers has been extremely poorly done. Unlike the Government, who believe in dealing with the mass and the State, I believe in dealing with the individual. The duty of any Government is to encourage each individual to advance himself to the maximum extent possible. The individual should be encouraged in so doing. He should not be held back by schemes of egalitarianism that appear to be of more

  1299
  fundamental importance to the Government than the education of future generations of the British people,
  Mr. Spearing: If I said anything that caused the hon. Gentleman to make the interpretation that he has indicated, I wholeheartedly withdraw it. It was said in the cross-flow of debate.
  Mr. William Small: I intervene for only one minute to make a comment on the intellect of Members in this Chamber. I thought that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) would give us impeccable teaching in educational terms. The hon. Gentleman talked about "kids". If he looks in Hansard tomorrow, he will find that was the word he used. I thought that kids were the offspring of goats, not people.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Skeet: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I certainly agree that standards of education in the United Kingdom have declined. We need standards today.
  I have not had 16 years' experience in a comprehensive school, but I am the father of two boys. Therefore, I have considered these matters practically. When I look at the population I require no convincing that our standards have gone down. Yet all that the Government can produce is this Bill, which will do nothing to conserve standards. Indeed, we have only to look at Clause 1, which provides for a system of education
  "not based…on selection by reference to ability or aptitude."
  To have ability or aptitude as a standard may now be disclaimed.
  I listened to the Under-Secretary with interest. The hon. Lady indicated that she was not going to bound ahead with any experiment, but was going to read the reports one after the other. The Department of Education and Science is trying to invent new criteria for defining literacy. We have seen this before on many occasions. Education is being debased. Whenever the Government get into difficulty over the cost of living, they bring out a new index. Whenever they have trouble with sterling, they find ways of hoodwinking the public into believing that the situation is vastly improved.
  1300
  Everybody, inside or outside this House, knows that educational standards have declined. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches do not know that standards in education have declined, I suggest that they go back to their constituencies and ask any man in the street.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: Before I came into this House I spent eight years training teachers and nine years teaching before that. What practical experience has the hon. Gentleman, to make the observation that he has just made?
  Mr. Skeet: My practical experience with men is considerable. I have travelled the globe. I was born abroad. I have had considerable experience in the United Kingdom. I am a professional man, and the father of two boys. That is the experience of life which enables me to come to that conclusion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go to his constituency and inquire whether standards in some of the local schools have declined. I think that in some schools standards are going up, and I am delighted. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman why standards generally are declining. I have given a little thought to this matter.
  First, I challenge any person—headmaster or anybody else, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—to teach in a class where there is indiscipline. If there is considerable indiscipline, no child can learn. If the Department of Education and Science could devise some means of ensuring that teachers who can maintain maximum control are selected, I should be delighted. If methods can be found to ensure that discipline is maintained in classes, all well and good.
  What worries me is that the Labour Party is more concerned about systems of education than the education of children.
  Mr. Spearing: No.
  Mr. Skeet: We support variety in education. We support public schools, direct grant schools—the lot—because they give parental choice, but the Labour Party is concerned to bring in, overnight, one system, and one system only—regimentation of the mind. The Labour Party wants regimentation of the same

  1301
  type as was found in Nazi Germany prior to the war. [Interruption.] There has been conduct in the House of Commons of which hon. Gentlemen will not be too proud—for example, the breaking of pairs.
  Mr. Flannery: Where was the hon. Gentleman in the early hours of this morning?
  Mr. Skeet: I was at the House very early this morning. I must not deviate too far. However, as I have been challenged, there was also the case of the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill, when the Government suspended the rules of the House.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am not sure that this comes within the terms of the new clause.
  Mr. Skeet: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me a question on this clause.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman referred to certain indisciplines in the House and elsewhere. Does he not agree with me that these indisciplines are a reflection of the "devil-take-the-hindmost and every-man-for-himself" sort of society of which he is an advocate?
  Mr. Skeet: One of the difficulties with some hon. Members is that their chips are so large that they cannot get them off their shoulders. I wonder whether they would try to approach education and life in the way that many other people try to do. We are much more cheerful about these matters, and like to see things in their proper perspective.
  I have been trying to indicate why it is essential to have variety, and why we have difficulties in education today in the United Kingdom.
  One problem may be the quality of teachers. I was appalled last night to find that the Secretary of State for Scotland is recruiting teachers in Canada. Is it because the quality of recruit here is not good enough? Is this also one of the reasons why literacy is not as high as it should be in the United Kingdom?
  1302
  As to the problem of truancy, it is obvious that if a child is absent from school he cannot be educated.
  Then there is the language problem. In Bedford we have a very large immigrant population. I pay tribute to the work of the local education authority, which has done a remarkable job in ensuring that the children are ready to receive education. It does so by giving them special language courses. Our experiments in this regard are probably the best in the country. Anyone who doubts this should come to Bedford and look at them. But this is precisely the sort of thing that the clause suggests. The authority is seeking to establish a standard in order that children may go on to further education and take full advantage of the system.
  We have first to understand the cause of illiteracy in the United Kingdom, and then we have to have a standard to which people can approximate, hoping that they will then try to surpass it. We ought not to muddle this with the 11-plus examination, which at least kept people on course and was an aspiration towards which they could work. Unfortunately, there are no standards towards which people can work today. Industrialists say that they want boys and girls to be educated up to certain standards, but in practice they have to get hold of young people themselves and advance them to the required standards, when this should be done under the education system.
  I hope that the Minister will be accommodating and say that, although the clause may not be in the form he would like, he will nevertheless take it away and put it into the right language.
  Standards are very useful in both life and education. It is surprising that this aspect has not been thought of before. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned that in the last century people thought about it, but it has not been incorporated in the Bill in the way that it should be. In setting up standards, various criteria have to be established, and the matter requires to be carefully thought out. No doubt they could be brought in by the Minister by Order in Council.
  How is this to be secured in practice? Surely nothing could be more reasonable than to defer a child's education for one

  1303
  year while he catches up, before he moves on. Special instruction could be given. We have many teachers who are idle today. This might be an extremely useful exercise for them. Rather than pay for social security, or to guarantee their salaries, we could use them in maintaining high standards in our schools, where they are particularly required. Something should also be done to re-assess teaching methods.
  I earnestly suggest to the Secretary of State that he should accept the clause. It is a very sound one. It deals with a nonparty matter. It will benefit children and be of advantage to our education system.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I was interested to hear the view of the Minister, and of the hon. Member who had taught in secondary schools for 13 or 14 years, that almost the worst thing that could happen to a child was to be held back for a time while the other children in the class were promoted. However, I suspect that I am not the only Member, even among those in the Chamber at present, who can remember his own school days and being held back for a while, perhaps as a result of illness. Perhaps one missed a large part of a term and one was held back while one's colleagues in the class went on. I can remember being grateful for being held back so that I could do the work I had missed and not being forced to go on when it would have been assumed by the teachers that I knew work that I had not been able to learn.
  Therefore, it seems idiotic for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the worst thing that can happen to a child is to be held back for a time while his peers go on.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very big difference between being held back inside a school, particularly a selective school, in some way or other and being prevented from going from a junior school to a senior school with one's peers, and that the effect of that on a child of 10 is a very different matter from the situation that he describes, with which I have some sympathy?
  Mr. Goodhart: I should have thought that, if anything, it was worse to be in
  1304
  the same school and to see one's colleagues of the previous term going into another classroom. That is surely more degrading, if it be degrading at all, than seeing them disappearing to another school, when one cannot be taunted.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could not the State system take a lesson from the private sector of education, in which the transfer age from prep school to public school is extremely flexible? Some pupils pass from prep school to public school at 12½ and some do not go until they are 14. It depends entirely upon their ability and educational development. Perhaps the maintained system can take a lesson from the private sector over the very thing that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was talking about, which is flexibility of education.
  Mr. Goodhart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was so ably moving the Second Reading of the new clause, he made some disparaging remarks about the Bullock Committee on literacy. I agree with my hon. Friend that the report could have been shorter and more definite and that the observations made could have been expressed more pungently. However, at least it underlined the commonsense factor that in schools literacy and books go hand in hand and that if one wants literate schoolchildren it is desirable that there should be a large and ample supply of books in schools.
  We know, alas, that there is a very wide difference in the provision of school books between one area and another, and, indeed, between schools in the same area. The Government traditionally wash their hands of this state of affairs. At Question Time today we had a Minister saying at the Dispatch Box that this was not a matter for the Government and that the provision of books was a matter solely for local education authorities. The Government have consistently turned their backs on the recommendations in the Bullock Report that there should be national standards and national advice and that working parties should be set up.

  1305
  8.45 p.m.
  One of the advantages which would flow from acceptance of the new clause is that attention would be drawn to the schools where there was a higher-than-average failure rate in the literacy test. I suspect one would find that the schools which had a high failure rate in any national literacy test were also deficient in the provision of school books. I welcome the new clause because it would not only provide a necessary test for children but would provide a necessary test for schools themselves and would give us much needed guidance on where the too-scarce resources should be allocated.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): I should first declare an interest as a governor of a school in my constituency, the Stanley Deason School, in which I have had the opportunity of taking a close interest for some 10 years and which in recent times has been facing considerable upheaval and change. However, thanks to the determination in particular of the headmaster and the staff, it is coping extremely well with the problems which have been created.
  The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) moved the new clause very effectively. I should like to bring the clause to the attention of the House in relation to individual parents. I suspect that many of my colleagues have found in recent years that more and more parents have been to see them at their constituency advice centres, or have written to them, expressing concern about standards in the schools, standards in education and standards of discinpline. There are many reasons why schools go through a cycle of difficulty. In most cases it reflects upon the standard and the quality of the staff.
  When we look at the teaching profession as a whole, we realise that the country can be proud of the standard of the men and women who have taken up teaching as their career and profession. However, we must not blink the fact that an increasingly large number of pupils who move from primary to secondary education are not able to read as well as they should, are not able to express themselves in the way they should and clearly have not had the right dis-
  1306
  ciplinary standards applied in their early formative years in education.
  Some hon. Members might have seen a document produced by the French Embassy in London entitled "Education In France". I commend it to the Secretary of State, although perhaps he has read it already. In particular, I would refer to page 10 of that document, which ties in closely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) said. It states:
  "Primary education is provided in elementary schools. There is a common curriculum divided into five successive levels; the length of the first level may vary.
  Primary education is designed to give the child the basic tools of learning: oral and written expression, reading, and arithmetic; it promotes the development of intelligence and artistic sensitivity, manual, physical and sporting abilities. It provides an initiation to the plastic and musical arts. In conjunction with his parents, it undertakes the moral and civic education of the child".
  Those seem to me to be the fundamental reasons for education and the importance of starting in the right way at the first stage.
  On page 15, the document refers to the timetable during primary education, taking an average week. Fifteen hours a week are spent on the basic subjects—language, reading and arithmetic; six hours a week are spent on subjects which make the children aware of their environment—history, geography, natural sciences; and six hours a week are spent on open-air activities, including physical training and team sports. We have a good deal to learn from the French. There, surely, is a basis on which primary education can prepare children for the advanced stages of education.
  The area which concerns me most is the standard of discipline in primary education. In my days at school, I never took easily to hard work. Many years ago, there were ways and means of persuading one to work rather harder than one might have done which are not popular today.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It did my hon. Friend a lot of good.
  Mr. Bowden: That is a point of view my late father held. When he took me to the school on one occasion, he said that if I was not regularly beaten it was unlikely that I would work hard.

  1307
  One might argue that the pendulum in discipline has swung from one end to the other.
  Mr. Winterton: That is an unfortunate choice of words.
  Mr. Bowden: I have to follow my hon. Friend occasionally.
  When we talk about free discipline, that is really only another term for no discipline at all. That can create nothing short of chaos in the classroom, which must affect every pupil. Many children do not find it easy to learn, and they need the help of a disciplined environment. If we fail to provide it, as in too many cases we are failing, expensive remedial work is required.
  Many schools—some, I regret to say, even in my constituency—have to spend a great deal of time in providing remedial classes at the higher levels of education. This is expensive in resources, particularly of skilled teachers, and in finance. Everything possible must be done to avoid that problem. One solution would be the new clause and the setting of basic minimum standards.
  Even in higher education, even in some universities, what are effectively remedial classes have to be provided to prepare the students effectively for a degree course. That is scandalous. It is a gross misuse of funds, skills and teaching abilities.
  Parents have the right to know what are the intentions of the education system. They have a right to know the basic standards that they can expect their children to attain as they pass through each stage of the education process. More and more parents ask for that information. A broad minimum standard at each level would be of great benefit to the teaching profession, and above all to the children. If we combine those standards with new steps to check and monitor them, we shall take a rapid step forward and get away from the gentle slide of standards and discipline, which is in danger of escalating.
  I commend the new clause. I hope that the Government will accept it.
  Mr. Flannery: It would be difficult to find a more backward new clause than this one. It has the hallmark of the name at its head. I refer to the hon. Member
  1308
  for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). In Committee the hon. Gentleman told us that he had once been a truant from school. He delved into the past, almost looking over the battlements. He told us how wicked mankind was and how people were prone to evil from childhood. He almost used the ecumenical expressions that are dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas). The hon. Gentleman told us that he had a picture of children in a school yard wearing long grey socks and performing Swedish drill, and that he used it on a Christmas card. I hope that the Opposition remember that tour de force. It was positively feudal. It reeked of educational backwardness.
  In their efforts to denigrate the education system, the Opposition overstate their case so monumentally that increasingly few people listen to it, although some people are able to drive the point home morning, noon and night in newspapers which they own. We are subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda on the evils facing schoolchildren and teachers. I speak as an experienced teacher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Opposition do not like that. They speak with the inexperience of a backward class. That is the reality.
  I should have liked all the children of this country to have seen what recently happened in this place when an hon. Gentleman seized and wielded the Mace. The Opposition talk about indiscipline, and they have the nerve to condemn children and schools. That is a point to counter the educational nonsense which is contained in this pseudo clause.
  Mr. Macfarlane Mr. Macfarlane rose—
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Flannery: Hon. Gentlemen must be patient. I have listened patiently to the claptrap turned out by Conservative Members. They must be patient while I speak good, common sense.
  Running down the educational system is a time-honoured pursuit. It is usually an indication of hardening of the arteries or old age. It is easy to denigrate a system that people are honourably in process of building up with the funds at their disposal. It is no answer to hold examinations for primary children instead of the constant process of daily assessment

  1309
  through human contact between teacher and child. As any experienced primary school teacher knows, that former system belongs to the past and has been relegated to the dustbin of history.
  When the 11-plus examination is lifted from the primary schools, the teachers tell us that our primary schools are the pride of international education.
  Dr. Hampson Dr. Hampson rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I give way to the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who has made such salient points.
  Dr. Hampson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the new clause is taken directly from the Bullock Report, which advocates a system of testing, particularly at the age of 7 and around the age of 11?
  Mr. Flannery: I gave evidence to the Bullock Committee.
  In the school of which I was head, the teachers each day listened to the children as they read. When children have difficulties, there is no substitute for taking them round one's desk in a way which should be dear to the hearts of Opposition Members, and I should want that to happen in any school of which I was the head. If ever I left this place to become a headmaster, I would do that again. I would want a continuous process of assessment without the rigid formality of examinations. We have steadily got rid of the backward mentality of "Friday morning is test morning", utilising time in nonsensical examinations when we should have been teaching and making a continuous, daily, human, compassionate assessment of the children.
  Subsection (2) of this futile clause would result in children being held back. The time for that has long passed. Let us hope that never again will young people be held back with younger children. That is one of the most dreadful practices in the education calendar. I hope that Opposition Members, through lack of knowledge of teaching and education, will no longer advocate such puerile nonsense.
  Coming to the question of conduct in schools, Opposition Members talk as though school were an organisation for rectifying the ills of society. School, with deadly accuracy I am sorry to say, re-
  1310
  fleets the ills of the society outside. The society which we have imposed on the children is reflected in the school. It is nonsense to expect school to rectify the ills which we have created. Does anyone think that what happens in the primary school is responsible for the vandalism which occurs in our acquisitive society, in which Opposition Members lead the way. The acquisitive, devil-take-the-hindmost and weakest-to-the-wall society is imposed by Opposition Members, and it is reflected in the schools in which the children are taught.
  Does anyone think that the hooliganism which occurs at football matches stems from schoolchildren? It stems from an illness deep within the bowels of the society in which we live. That has to be rectified, and it cannot be blamed on the schools.
  This attempt to blame comprehensive education is to be expected from an elitist group the members of which have done everything for themselves and their children, and have held back the vast majority of children. But it will not work. We have twigged it. We see where it leads. We are determined to provide a compassionate, broad, general education of the type which is going from strength to strength and which has produced higher scholastic achievements than we have ever had, despite the denigration by the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have just heard a fine example of intellectual arrogance. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has indicated that he knows best and that everybody else's views do not count. I am not so sure that it would not be far better for the children of this country if the hon. Gentleman were to remain in this House rather than return to the classroom. It was a very famous Tory Prime Minister, a man with many progressive ideals and ideas, who said that the youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity. I do not think I need remind that hon. Gentleman that that was said by Benjamin Disraeli. I am sure he would also have agreed that children have a right to be educated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) indicated, in his excellent remarks to the House, that parents have a right to know,

  1311
  and a right to expect certain standards. More than that, I would say that children have a right to know that they are being educated to a proper standard in literacy and in numeracy, and it is my view that many of the proposals of this Government will deny children this basic human right of knowing that they are to be educated to a proper standard.
  If we are not very careful, in the years ahead children will become the new deprived—deprived of being able to read a job advertisement to get work, deprived of being able to do simple calculations, deprived of knowing the joy of being able to communicate with one another because they cannot write, and deprived, through lack of discipline, of being able to take their place in a free and ordered society. All the massive spending on new buildings, new laboratories, new teaching systems and glass palaces of varying opulence cannot hide the basic deprivation of children if they have not the ability to read and write, add, or communicate with others. Surely, this is what this new clause is all about.
  We want this provision written into this Bill to ensure that there are proper standards for what is a very basic foundation of good life for any young person. I put to the House these questions: what extra opportunity and what guarantee of standards have been given to children who once went to a grammar school and perhaps now go to the neighbourhood comprehensive school, and those who otherwise would have gone to a secondary modern school where a good structured education once enabled the late developer, perhaps the young person requiring remedial teaching, to be given an equal educational opportunity? I would say particularly to one or two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Government side of the House that for a number of years I have taken an active interest in education, both private and maintained. For a number of years I served as chairman of governors of a non-selective secondary school—an excellent school that produced excellent results in examinations, and where there was concern for the discipline of young people. Why? Because they had a fine headmaster who believed in a structured school, in examinations and discipline, and who set a
  1312
  fine example for that school, which produced such excellent results for the young people who went there.
  I submit that the bright youngster—boy or girl—from a working-class background will be more deprived under the present Government proposals than he or she ever was under what some people so often criticise, the old 11-plus system. Indeed, under the 11-plus system, a child at a secondary modern school probably had better teaching and more opportunities to go to a university than does his counterpart who today is consigned to a comprehensive school with 2,000 pupils. At least the secondary school was smaller and was more able to cope with a child's individual needs, often with great success.
  I direct that remark particularly to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who for a number of years was a lecturer in education. I was a school governor for a number of years, as well as chairman of a governing body. I have taken an active interest in the running of the school concerned. I visited the school frequently, and have attended classes there to see the type of education that is provided. I was delighted to find that the school insists on standards of numeracy and literacy, because it knows that that is the foundation on which all subsequent educational progress is based.
  Mr. Flannery: Schools still do that.
  Mr. Winterton: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that I wish that were the case, because statistics clearly show a lowering of academic standards of numeracy and literacy in recent years.
  Are the present proposals the equality of educational opportunity that the Socialists use as their defence for destroying the British educational system? Are Socialists proud that the only way for children to pass exams is to lower the standard to such an extent that everybody will hold meaningless, worthless certificates.
  The subject of competition at school was absent from the speech made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
  Mr. Flannery: Deliberately absent.
  Mr. Winterton: Competition at school, with the emphasis on attainment, is necessary to spur children on to greater success. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is a fundamental belief that I hold. It certainly has not done youngsters any harm in the whole of our history.
  When the overwhelming evidence is against what the Government are doing, why are Socialists determined to implement the scheme by force? I suggest that they may not want a high standard of education for the nation as a whole. Only a collapse of the education system can contribute to the destruction of capitalism, which certain Labour Members seek. A determined policy to create a situation of virtual anarchy in our schools is the motive behind the policy promoted by so many Socialists.
  Let me again refer to the subject of standards. I believe that the abolition of the 11-plus examination as a monitoring instrument, and the withdrawal by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), when Secretary of State for Education, of the system of general inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectors and the influence of teachers who see their task as a "liberating" rather than as a teaching rôle, have played their part in the decline in standards, about which so many of us feel so strongly.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition believes that we are feeding into our children doubts rather than beliefs—that we have begun to teach them to doubt without teaching them to believe. That is an important philosophical point, and it has an important bearing on this clause.
  Standards are vital not only to the children but also to their parents. If we want to encourage parents to take a more active interest in their children's education, surely we must give them an objective upon which to set their eyes. We must give them a standard that they will encourage their child to attain.
  9.15 p.m.
  One of the latest developments in education put forward by the educational bureaucrats of Whitehall and County Hall, with advice and cajoling by educational trendies, is the open plan school, which is physically without classroom
  1314
  divisions. I would ask some of these people, particularly the hon. Member for Hillsborough, how they can really assess the progress of a child in one of these open plan schools. I believe that this new trend, if carried to the ultimate, will wreak havoc with standards.
  I hope that Conservative Members on education committees will be vigilant in ensuring that the educational bureaucrats of County Hall do not slip this proposal through on the pretext of lower costs to ratepayers. Open plan schools, in which children wander between activities and in which no teacher has any definite responsibility pinned on him or her for the standards of children, are schools in which there is little or no security of syllabus or structure. Such schools have no place in the education of children, in my philosophy.
  How can these children be assessed day by day with that human touch that the hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned? How can teachers assess the actual standards that young girls and boys are achieving in writing and arithmetic?
  Another aspect that is not directly related to the new clause is the ability of youngsters to communicate with each other and with teachers and parents. Today, the art of communication is more important than it was in the past. Educational psychologists have indicated to me that many of the problems facing young people today, and many of the frustrations that are generated, are caused because they cannot express themselves. All this is a part of education.
  The new clause that we are now debating is an attempt by the Opposition to ensure that young children are able to attain certain standards in numeracy and literacy. I strongly support the new clause and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on the competent and excellent way in which he put the case for it.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that there is no doubt about the existence of the problem with which the new clause is concerned. I do not think that one can be either dogmatic or absolute in one's approach to this subject, because there are a number of causes of lower attainment in literacy and numeracy.

  1315
  There is far more which has to be taught today than there ever was before. The sum of human knowledge is cumulative and each generation faces the problem of how to teach children all they had to be taught before, plus a lot more besides. My own experience is mixed. I find that children from some schools have attained a remarkably high degree of literacy and numeracy while children in other schools have attained a deplorably low degree. There is a very great variation, and the extent of the variation between our schools should be particularly worrying to us all.
  This is an enormously important subject because the correlation between crime and backwardness in reading is one of the best attested correlations one can find. There is no doubt at all that the child who is educationally backward is characteristically the one who is involved in crime. I do not think there is any absolutely easy solution. At least one element of clarity in my mind is that discipline is essential.
  Everyone tonight seems to be talking about his own children. I seem to have had a fair number myself. I have always been impressed, upon asking one of them for an estimate of a particular member of the teaching staff, at being told in particular cases "So-and-so is no good; he or she cannot keep order." A child instantly condemns a teacher who cannot keep order and is annoyed and frustrated, and in a sense cheated, because an intelligent child wants to learn but cannot do so in a class where order is not kept. It is fundamental, therefore, that a good teacher must keep order, by sheer force of personality if necessary.
  It has been necessary to try to elaborate new techniques, but the trouble is that they have rather gone to people's heads. I have heard teachers complaining that unless one has a gimmick one stays where one is, that a gimmicky teacher might become a local inspector and that an acutely gimmicky teacher might become an HMI. I think it was Bacon who said:
  "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man and writing an exact man."
  The television and wireless are the equivalent of conference or conversation, and those who say, rather too glibly, that our children are highly intelligent and
  1316
  well-informed these days are referring to the fact that in a sense they are too ready. But the trouble is that children do not read enough. That is the fault not only of the schools but particularly of the home. If a child is a reader, he is home and dry. If he is not a reader, academically he is sunk.
  In the schools there has been excessive reliance upon techniques other than writing. After all, what one surely wants to do with a child is to extend its power of abstract thought, to extend the degree to which it can project its thoughts without concrete props. I referred earlier to the problem of indiscipline and the difficulty of conducting an indisciplined class. With the noise which is coming from the Government Benches, I think we can see a very good example of that problem at the moment. Perhaps it does not matter, however, because I despair in that quarter.
  To return to what I was saying, I think that there has been, especially in primary schools, too great a reliance on these props to teach children through concrete and corporeal examples, and this has given them a certain facility for the time being.
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most difficult for some of us to hear the excellent speech by my hon. and learned Friend because of the chatter of conversation being conducted on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would help if the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) were to address the Chair instead of turning his back on Members on the Government Benches who are trying to hear what he is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not wish to discourage anyone from addressing the Chair, but I was having no difficulty in hearing what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying.
  Mr. Bell: I thought I was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if there is a great desire on the Government Benches to hear what I have to say I am intensely gratified.
  I entirely applaud the new clause, which ventures into a complicated area

  1317
  with many considerations on both sides. I do not think one wants to write off the present generation of schoolchildren as uneducated and entirely in the hands of cranks and lunatics. That would be exaggerating a case which is quite strong enough without any exaggeration.
  We have been asked during the debate for evidence of what has been said. I cast my mind back to when teachers' superannuation was an important issue. Almost every teacher in the country wrote to hon. Members. It was like a written examination. One was shattered to find how few teachers knew that there was an "a" in the word Parliament.
  Sir George Young: There are two.
  Mr. Bell: I am not sure that some of them knew that there was even one.
  It is obvious that the formalism of education has not had a high place in the education of some teachers. We have had to introduce an examination in the use of the English language because it can no longer be taken for granted. The teaching of language is one of the met-wands by which one might judge. The English language is not taught in a formal way. Children are not explicitly taught sentence structure. They are given instead an absurd exercise called comprehension. Any child can bluff his way through a comprehension test, but to tell the difference between an adverbial clause and a noun-subject clause one must have a clear-cut mind.
  I was never very good at mathematics, and when I was at school it was easy for a child who was not good at mathematics to be left behind in the class and to lose touch with those who understood the subject. Since then, there has been an immense improvement in the teaching of mathematics in good schools by good teachers. Systems like the Southampton mathematics project are helpful to children who would be backward in the subject and who could hold back the brighter child. The dilemma is whether one should teach a subject by a refined simplicity, which helps the child who finds it hard to grasp mathematical concepts but which creates the problems of a transition from traditional methods for the brighter child. One has to face up to that kind of problem.
  1318
  That brings me to the new clause. I do not brush aside the objection raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to the proposition of holding back a child from transferring from one school to another. But there is a strong argument against sending a child to secondary school without the basic equipment of a facility in language and numbers. The job of the primary school should be to give a child the tools. The job of the secondary school is to teach the child to use those tools for the absorption and comprehension of the great mass of human knowledge. Is it right to send a child to secondary school without those tools? On the whole, head teachers' conferences have been against it. Head teachers have complained year after year of the time they have to spend on children in the entry forms, repairing the omissions of primary schools.
  It is not an easy problem. I have not come here to be dogmatic about it. I have no experience of teaching. Like other hon. Members, I have a general interest in education. But there is at least something to be said for the proposal in the new clause for an examination or test at the end of the primary phase to see whether the basic skills have been taught. I have an open mind about what the consequences of failure to pass that test should be.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will treat the new clause as a serious proposition that deserves thought. The whole question of testing the adequacy of skills at the end of the primary stage requires thought. What is more, we must do something, whatever it be, to raise the average standard of literacy and control of numbers with which children are leaving the primary schools and going into the secondary system.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: The contributions from the Government Benches have been disappointing, in terms not of quality by of numbers. I think that I am the third successive Conservative Member to speak in this important debate. I hope for the Government's sake that the public will not be aware of Labour Members' lack of interest in what we are discussing.

  1319
  I listened with great care to the few speeches from the Labour Benches. They strongly repudiated the suggestion that there had been a decline in standards. Whether or not there has been a decline, I ask Labour Members whether they are satisfied with present standards.
  The hon. Lady who opened the debate for the Government used the charming word "unwisdom", which I very much doubt is to be found in a dictionary. She denied that she was satisfied, but offered no solutions.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) used the nice phrase "internal monitoring of attainments". I wonder whether he meant "testing". Perhaps he did, but perhaps, like so many of his colleagues, he does not like the word "test". I cannot believe that if they are interested in education, as I am sure many of them are, Labour Members are satisfied with the present state of affairs, whether it is better than before, worse, or as good.
  Mr. Spearing: At first sight, the word "test" is superior to the phrase I used. In schools today testing has a place, in the sense of an objective examination, but there is something much more sensitive. It may be that regular and persistent looking at the way in which pupils are responding comes within that rather complicated phrase, which is an additional and very important part. Conservative Members do not always realise that it has a part to play.
  Mr. Shelton: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he was satisfied with standards, as that is what we are talking about. How can he tell how pupils are doing without testing them in one way or another?
  We on the Opposition side are not satisfied with the standards in our schools. I shall briefly give some reasons. First, I refer the Secretary of State to a document called "Educational Priority" published a year or so ago by his Department and the Social Science Research Council, which undertook research in schools in Liverpool, Birmingham, Deptford and the West Riding. A short report on it said that
  "Thousands of children leave inner-city primary schools at the age of 11 unable to
  1320
  read even a simple sentaence, according to a Government-sponsored report published today."
  Are Labour Members satisfied that that should be so? I refer them to another survey—"Children's Reading Interests", published for the Schools Council, and written by Mr. Frank Whitehead. A report on it said:
  "Forty per cent. of boys aged 14 never read anything more serious than a comic in their spare time, according to a random survey of 8,000 children between 10 and 14".
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that?
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a report in the Teacher magazine, published by the Inner London Education Authority, which says:
  "Over half a sample of 16-year-old day release pupils had a reading level below the average of 10 year old pupils."
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that?
  A study undertaken by the social studies department of Oxford University into the special problems of immigrant children found that 60 per cent. of Asian children in Birmingham could not read English at the age of 11. Are the Government satisfied with that?
  Mrs. Payne, who undertook that study, commenting on teaching in junior schools said that junior schoolteachers are generally not taught how to teach reading. This is thought to be the province of infant schools, yet in the junior schools studied, a large proportion of children were quite unprepared for the work expected of them. Clearly, something is wrong with our standards. They may be no worse, but everyone in the House should be as concerned about them as we are.
  We have had no concrete proposals from hon. Members on the Government side of the House. If I may paraphrase the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South, they have talked of testing, and constant assessment, but they have not suggested any real action.
  A headmaster told me the other day about a 10-year-old boy who arrived in his school on a Monday morning having come from Jamaica on the previous Friday. He had been living with his grandmother in the hills above Montego Bay

  1321
  and had had no education. His grandmother was taken ill, and the boy was put on a plane to join his mother in this country. On Monday morning he arrived at school. Such boys must be properly indentified and helped, or they will suffer grievously themselves and cause the children in their forms to suffer at the same time.
  We should not underestimate the importance of reading and writing. One hon. Member opposite said how terrible it was to hold a boy back, but is it not much more terrible to allow a boy to leave school without being able to read or write properly? I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have ever talked to an adult illiterate. I have, and I found it a frightening experience. Think what it must be like to be illiterate.
  The person to whom I was speaking was a lavatory attendant, and his ambition was to become a waiter in a restaurant. When I asked why he could not become a waiter, he said he could not read menus and would not know the prices. He cannot drive a car because he cannot read speed signs. These people are living in a different world. We must try to put ourselves in their position and imagine what it is like.
  Hon. Members suggest that the worst thing in the world is holding a boy back for six months or a year to teach him to read and write properly. Are they not more concerned about people who leave school without being able to read or write at all? It is most terrible that that should happen to anyone.
  Next, I wish to talk about the importance of mathematics. There is no doubt that some universities are having to establish remedial classes for mathematics for their students. They have to teach the basic facts and skills that the students have not acquired as they should have done. They lack a basic understanding of
  "algebra, calculus, geometry and other disciplines."
  I point out to the Government—this may convince them—that in the Soviet Union there are special schools for selected children who are gifted mathematically. There are special boarding schools in the major cities of the Soviet Union, while most cities of any size have special day schools
  1322
  for those specially gifted in mathematics and physics. Perhaps the Russians are right to provide those schools, but I am not arguing that point. I am saying that at least our students must have basic numeracy and literacy before they leave school.
  We are saying by means of the clause that the right time for the remedial class is before the student moves on from primary school to secondary school. Unless there is an examination such as we are recommending, how are we to identify the children who need help? Of course, it is a form of selection, but it is the same form of selection that is used to identify an educationally subnormal child who needs help, or a child who is hard of hearing or partially sighted.
  The child who is illiterate or not numerate needs the same sort of help as does the ESN child, the partially-sighted child, or the child who is hard of hearing. How can the illiterate child or the child who is not numerate be identified by constant assessment? He must be identified by means of an independent standard, established nationally by the Secretary of State. Those who are heard of hearing, partially sighted, or whatever, must be identified by an independent standard. That is why I so strongly support the clause.
  If, by accepting the clause and instituting the test that we are proposing, perhaps keeping back a few students a year, we can reduce by 10 per cent. or by 500,000, or even 100,000, the number of illiterate adults, thus preventing them from leaving school as illiterates, we shall have done a good day's work.
  Mr. George Gardiner: I hope it can be said without contradiction that the discussion of the new clause has produced a welcome debate. Certainly it has been a welcome debate for those who sat through 35 sittings in Standing Committee E. In all the discussion of the Bill which has raged since last December, we have at last broken some new ground with the clause. Those who have been involved in the proceedings in Committee might agree that some new ground in this discussion on education was badly needed.
  The Bill was strongly contested by my right hon. and hon. Friends when it was presented for Second Reading. Nothing

  1323
  happened in the 35 sittings in Committee to lessen our deep repugnance towards the Bill. There have been small concessions, although there has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of Ministers to acknowledge them as such. However, the Bill still remains the same centralising dictatorial measure, robbing individuals and communities alike of the rights conferred upon them under the Education Act 1944 to shape the pattern of education in their areas.
  9.45 p.m.
  The last time we touched on these matters was on Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said:
  "The Bill is an insult to the intelligence of all parents and is contemptuous of the anxieties that they feel."—[Official Report, 4th February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1234.]
  That is as true today as it was last December.
  While the total number of trained teachers joining the dole queue increases, while resources for education are being cut back and while the anxieties of parents, pupils, students and teachers over what is happening grow day by day, the Government have persisted with this measure, which is at worst damaging and at best irrelevant. If ever there was a betrayal of our children by those with statutory responsibilitiy for ensuring their education, it is the pursuit of this measure at the expense of recognising the real needs of parents, pupils and teachers.
  The new clause sets out to bring our discussion back to the real needs which people in education are feeling. The purpose of the new clause is to bring the Government down from their flight of collectivist fancy to the reality of what is worrying people in our schools today. What more appropriate, therefore, than that the new clause should be concerned with standards of education in our schools?
  The issue causing the most general concern among the parents of school age children today is the reorganisation of secondary education in some areas. We must admit and face the fact that, where this is the case, the concern usually runs in the opposite direction from that of the Government, as we discovered in the debate on New Clause 2 today.
  There are many parts of the country where the comprehensive principle has
  1324
  been accepted and implemented. Therefore, we have a duty to parents in those areas to see that their comprehensives have and live up to all that is claimed for them. It is a major Education Bill which does nothing whatsoever to help parents in those areas and does nothing to meet their real and growing anxieties, which have nothing to do with the argument over selectivity, to be allowed to go through this House? Are there not real anxieties held by the parents of children in the primary sector which the Bill will do nothing to meet or rectify?
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful and pertinent point. He said that the Bill would not remove any of the anxieties of parents with children in the primary sector. Surely that is what the Bill does. The greatest anxiety of all to thousands of parents with children in the primary sector is the bogy of the 11-plus which some of their children still have to face.
  Mr. Gardiner: That might apply to a number of parents of children in the primary sector. However, I know from experience that there are great anxieties among those parents arising from the precipitate elimination of selection in some areas. I speak from experience in my own constituency. Parents ask why a particular school of quality, which was open to their children, is now denied to them. That school has been driven into the private sector and replaced by something which in their eyes is totally unproven. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the valid point that what has been described as a major Education Bill should lift its eyes above the argument over selectivity which has been engaging so many of us for many years.
  We must recognise that anxiety, which is very general in the country in areas which still have selective education and in those which do not. It is not good enough for Ministers on the Government Bench to reject the clause and to do nothing whatever to meet that anxiety over standards by any other measure, amendment or new clause.
  The truth is that there is far more general anxiety in education today over standards than over this or that particular pattern of organisation. There is growing concern over academic standards

  1325
  in our schools, as measured by results at O-level and A-level—secondary level—and as measured by literacy and numeracy attainment—the three Rs—in the primary schools.
  Evidence of that is presented to us from all sides. It comes from teachers and head teachers in secondary schools who complain that children are coming up to them at 11 or 12, unable to read properly and sometimes unable even to read at all. They cannot express themselves, either verbally or in writing, have little command of number work and have no disciplined approach to learning. As a consequence, a great deal of time and effort is consumed in the first years at secondary level in remedying deficiencies which should have been corrected before the pupils ever came to that stage.
  Similarly, we have the evidence presented to us from the universities. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) dealt with this just now. Many authorities in higher and further education are complaining of students coming to them from secondary schools without the knowledge and understanding which are necessary to enable them to commence the course at the levels that once applied. The university itself now very frequently has to teach basic facts and skills again before the pupils can embark on a proper degree course.
  There are two well-known examples of this. One of them was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. It is in mathematics, where remedial classes are now frequently necessary for first-year students in chemistry, physics, engineering and other mathematical sciences and technology.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why additional classes in mathematical subjects are often now incorporated in university courses is that university courses themselves are becoming far more numerical in content? That is the simple reason. It has nothing to do with the background of the student.
  Mr. Gardiner: I do not deny that that may well be a factor, but it is by no means the only one. We have evidence from the Chairman of the Schools Council Mathematics Committee, Mr. Douglas Quadling, that complaints about falling standards in mathematics are justified.
  Sir George Sinclair: Will my hon. Friend accept the evidence of many of those who are concerned with the admission of people from secondary schools to the universities that though bright boys and girls may be, they are not sufficiently prepared when they arrive at the university to take full advantage immediately of the courses the university has to offer? This is the evidence being given by don after don and tutor after tutor in the universities.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point I was seeking to make.
  Of course, the objections that are coming from universities are not restricted to deficiencies in mathematics. Many universities are now seriously saying that for a degree course in languages they frequently have to ignore all the work which has previously been done in schools and assume that a pupil knows nothing and start again from square one. It is equally said by people at this level that the teaching of basic English grammar and the structure of language, and so on, is so poor that a pupil has no proper linguistic foundation from which to pursue the study of foreign languages.
  That is the evidence that is brought to us from the universities and schools. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the evidence that is put before us almost weekly by employers who find standards dropping among those whom they are seeking to recruit. This is a tragedy which can cause a very nasty blight upon a school leaver's start in his working career from which it may take him many years to recover, if he really recovers from it at all.
  Finally, there is the evidence which must come to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the evidence from parents. This comes in our mail weekly. I ask Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who is not now present, to accept that this is not an anxiety that is being expressed from some elitist end of the population who see their own entrenched standards being undermined. Many of the letters that come to us are from working families who are very worried about the standards of education which they see sometimes applying in their local schools. These people, above

  1327
  all, often recognise the great value of education in improving the lot and the life of their children above that which they themselves were able to attain. Therefore, let us not be deluded by the argument that the motive force behind these complaints over falling and lapsing standards comes from some elitist section of the population. I am sure that Labour Members must get evidence on this issue coming into their hands just as Opposition Members do.
  How has this situation come about? A number of suggestions have been made this evening. First, there is the suggestion that new teaching techniques have contributed to this. That is not an argument in which I wish to become involved tonight. It is becoming a habit in the debate to declare parenthood. I am the father of three children, all of whom are in the primary sector, and I have had children taught under formal methods of teaching as well as informal methods. I have seen children benefit and suffer under both these systems.
  However, when one looks at the evidence from Neville Bennett's recent study, for example—about which there is good honest argument in the economic world —it amazes me that we have to reach this point in time and get a study of that kind presented to us before we begin to ask ourselves whether we should not be testing in some way the product of these new teaching techniques that we have so happily fallen for or implemented. Should not these have come long ago, and should we not have had comparative reports before us long ago? That is one area of argument as to how the situation has come about—the application of new teaching techniques. I stress, however, that I would not want to criticise those techniques per se.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Education Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Gardiner: The second explanation put forward for this situation is the disruption that has frequently arisen from
  1328
  reorganisation itself. It has been pointed out before that previous Secretaries of State from the Conservative side have agreed to comprehensive reorganisation schemes. But the important thing is to ensure the minimum disturbance and disruption to the pupils engaged in the process if, indeed, it is the will of the area concerned to have such a system.
  The third reason advanced—here I echo a point made from our own Benches—could well be the application of the egalitarian ethic and the fear that has grown in many quarters of recognising and promoting excellence. On that point, if on no other, I would agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough that frequently the mistakes and the lapses in our education system are the reflection of faults and changes in our society itself.
  When intervening earlier, the Under-Secretary of State argued that no suitable tests were available for us to employ for the purpose outlined in the new clause. There are already a number of experimental monitoring schemes on reading ability. The hon. Lady will be aware of what is going on in the London borough of Croydon, where an assessment of every primary school child is made from the age of 5 up to 11. The reading is assessed and the exercise is repeated each year. This has already thrown up schools and teaching methods which are not producing satisfactory results, and the corrective measures are being introduced and implemented. Are Labour Members really against this as well? The basic supposition in the new clause is that we have reached a situation where public anxiety is now—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the Chair if private conversations could be carried on at a slightly lower level.
  Mr. Gardiner: I suggest that there is currently sufficient anxiety among parents, and thoughout education generally, over standards in our schools to merit the consideration of setting a minimum standard for literacy and numeracy. That is the basic point covered in the new clause.
  Surely the time has come to provide those minimum standards and to try to ensure that every child reaches them. The

  1329
  question is asked "Why at 10½ years? "The answer is that this is the age referred to in the original 1944 Education Act as the transfer age. However, hon. Members opposite will see that the new clause allows flexibility by adding the phase
  "or at an age to be determined by the Secretary of State",
  thus allowing for middle schools and other ages of transfer. I suggest there is no reason why such minimum standards should not also be provided for younger ages too, for the seven-year-olds or the nine-year-olds. This is a point which could well be argued.
  As a first move, surely a minimum standard in basic skills should be established before moving on to secondary school level. That would be of great value in telling us how our techniques are working and in showing secondary schools how best to start with new pupils.
  The second part of the clause—I am surprised at the great exception which has been taken to this—suggests that the children who do not attain the minimum standards would be better served by being kept back and brought on for one year to equip them properly for the secondary education.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: In the event of a backward child being kept back in the primary school for a year and then not making the grade, what would happen? Would he stay in the primary school for the rest of his school life?
  Mr. Gardiner: A pupil who is persistently unable to reach the minimum standard would surely be a case for special education at a totally different institution.
  All the evidence about anxiety over standards has come from my hon. Friends. All that we have had from Labour Members is the assertion that it has all been got up by the Press and that there is nothing to worry about.
  The Under-Secretary made two basic arguments against us. First, she said that there were no suitable tests to fulfil this function. She referred to the assessment of performance unit set up to devise such tests but went on to say that the research was ongoing and implied that no satisfactory test would ever be obtained. Her second argument was that
  1330
  the implications of our test were undesirable and that it would have the same characteristics as aspects of the 11-plus other than its selecting function. This is an argument against all forms of examination and assessment. Previous Labour Secretaries of State have argued against examinations at any level of study or achievement.
  If Labour Members had been here for much of the debate, they would have heard their hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough argue that the only worthwhile assessment is daily contact with the teacher. He denied that there was any need for external assessment of performmance or ability at any stage. [Interruption.] But the most surprising thing about the hon. Lady's speech was her audacity in even mentioning the Bullock Report as a means of refuting what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) had said—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Peter Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. Member. I, too, had difficulty.
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the hon. Member's speech. You have not missed anything.
  Mr. Gardiner: I apologise to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I did not detect any point in his speech that was worth an answer.
  The Under-Secretary had the audacity to mention the Bullock Report. Despite all the protestations of concern by Ministers, it is a test of their integrity on this matter that the House has never yet had a chance to debate that report. Is not that evidence of their complacent approach to standards of literacy?
  We are all concerned, or should be—I sometimes doubt it—over current standards of education. We may have various theories as to the reasons for those standards —reorganisation, teaching methods and the rest. Surely we cannot accept the complacency of a Government who allow the passing of an Education Bill which they regard as a major measure but which takes no step to meet the legitimate anxieties of parents and

  1331
  teachers on this matter. We need effective remedies for the situation. The need to monitor and test, I should have thought had been amply spelt out by the Opposition.
  We do not lay down in the clause how best the teacher should achieve these minimum standards. By means of the new clause we ask that there should be an acceptable minimum standard of attainment for all children. That is the least that the Government, in pressing this tawdry Bill on to the statute book, should accept.
  Mr. Mulley: I have not previously had the privilege of realising that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is an entertaining speaker.
  There is no great difference between both sides of the House in so far as we are aware of and concerned about standards in education. Unhappily, there is nothing new in the fact that some children in our schools fail to attain the standards of literacy and numeracy that we desire.
  I knew illiterates when I was conscripted into the Armed Forces 40 years ago. I lived in a barrack room with a number of illiterates. Many of them asked me to write their applications for special leave and other such matters on their behalf. My letters—at a moderate charge—usually enabled them to obtain such special leave.
  The debate reflected concern about standards. The House must now decide whether or not to write into legislation a form of test which, in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—she put it clearly to the House—and in the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), might well make standards worse rather than better.
  In other contexts, we were told—it is a reasonable point—that new methods should not be introduced generally without testing and monitoring their results. To put it no higher, it would be unwise for the House to make mandatory this form of testing as a means of achieving the standards that we want.
  10.15 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Reigate said that the Bill robbed local education
  1332
  authorities of the rights conferred upon them by the 1944 Act. If there has to be a change in the balance of control of education from local government to central Government—I am not afraid to face this problem—it will be much more in the area of national standards, which imply a national control of curricular matters.
  The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town, (Mr. Bowden) quoted extensively from a publication showing how the French education system operates. As with several other countries—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Mulley: I should like to complete my sentence—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Mulley: With due deference to the hon. Lady, whose charms I can never resist, I should like to complete my sentence, when I shall willingly give way to her.
  In France and in other countries there is central control of the curriculum, but that has never been our traditional practice. There may have to be a swing in our balance, but to say that the Bill robs local education authorities and teachers of their rights under the Act and, at the same time, to propose this form of testing, goes beyond anything that I might have said about that kind of balance.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister accept that imposing reasonable national standards in no way implies control of the curriculum? It would be left to the headmaster to achieve the standards in his own way. All we seek to achieve is a standard, not a set curriculum as is done on the Continent.
  Mr. Mulley: I thought that the anxiety that has been expressed was about teaching methods and the way subjects are taught. [Interruption.] Whatever school the hon. Lady went to, manners clearly were not on the curriculum, otherwise she would be less prone to make observations from a seated position.
  It would not be appropriate to insert this form of words into the Bill. It would

  1333
  be wrong to take such a dramatic step without full consultation with the local authorities. We are sometimes criticised for not fully consulting education interests. We have to think through the implications. The hon. Lady heard me say in her constituency not long ago that there is concern, and that we want to raise standards. But this is not the right way to do it, and I ask the House to reject the clause.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division:
  Mr. Cormack (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be clear to you that at least four hon. Members were on their feet when the Government Chief Whip sought to close the discussion on this important clause. May I therefore ask for your protection? Will you allow us to continue the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for my discretion, and I have exercised my discretion.
  The House having divided:Ayes 315, Noes 267.

  Division No. 168.]

  AYES

  10.19 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Allaun, Frank

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Hardy, Peter

  Anderson, Donald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Harper, Joseph

  Archer, Peter

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hatton, Frank

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Atkinson, Norman

  Deakins, Eric

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hooley, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Horam, John

  Bates, Alf

  Dempsey, James

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Bean, R. E.

  Doig, Peter

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Beith, A. J.

  Dormand, J. D,

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Huckfield, Les

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Hughes, Roy (Nwport)

  Boardman, H.

  Eadle, Alex

  Hunter, Adam

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Edge, Geoff

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Boyden, James (BishAuck)

  English, Michael

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Bradley, Tom

  Ennais, David

  Janner, Greville

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Evans John (Newton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Buchan, Norman

  Faulds, Andrew

  John, Brynmor

  Buchanan, Richard

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Flannery, Martin

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Campbell, Ian

  Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Judd, Frank

  Cant, R. B.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ford, Ben

  Kelley, Richard

  Carter, Ray

  Forrester, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cartwright, John

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

  Kinnock, Neil

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lambie, David

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Freud, Clement

  Lamborn, Harry

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Lamond, James

  Cohen, Stanley

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  George, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Lee, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ginsburg, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Golding, John

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Corbett, Robin

  Gould, Bryan

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Graham, Ted

  Lipton, Marcus

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Litterick, Tom

  Cronin, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cryer, Bob

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Luard, Evan

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Park, George

  Stott, Roger

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parker, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Parry, Robert

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  McElhone, Frank

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  MacFarquhar, "Poderick

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Swain, Thomas

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Penhaligon, David

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Perry, Ernest

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Prescott, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Madden, Max

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Magee, Bryan

  Radica, Giles

  Tinn, James

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Tomlinson, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Torney, Tom

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Marquand, David

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Rooker, J. W.

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Roper, John

  Ward, Michael

  Mendelson, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Watkins, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Watkinson, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Weetch, Ken

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Weitzman, David

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Molloy, William

  Selby, Harry

  White, James (Pollok)

  Moonman, Eric

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Charles R. (Openehaw)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Moyle, Roland

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Newens, Stanley

  Sillars, James

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Noble, Mike

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Ogden, Eric

  Small, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Orbach, Maurice

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Woodall, Alec

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Snape, Peter

  Woof, Robert

  Ovenden, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Owen, Dr David

  Stallard, A. W.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Padley, Walter

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Pardoe, John

  Stoddart, David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eyre, Reginald

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Alison, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Arnold, Tom

  Churchill, W. S.

  Farr, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fell, Anthony

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Bell, Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Cockcroft, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Cope, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, John

  Cordle, John H.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fox, Marcus

  Blaker, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Fry, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Crawford, Douglas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Brittan, Leon

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brotherton, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Gorst, John

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Durant, Tony

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Buck, Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Budgen, Nick

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, Hamish

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Burden, F. A.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Grist, Ian

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Emery, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  1336

  1337

  Hall, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marten, Neil

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hannam, John

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mawby, Ray

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shepherd, Colin

  Hawkins, Paul

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter

  Silvester, Fred

  Heseltine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Holland, Philip

  Monro, Hector

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hordern, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Speed, Keith

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Spence, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Hunt, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stainton, Keith

  Hurd, Douglas

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Mudd, David

  Stanley, John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Neave, Airey

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  James, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Stokes, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Newton, Tony

  Storehouse, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Jones, Arthur (Deventry)

  Nott, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Osborn, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Kimball, Marcus

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Trotter, Neville

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Knox, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Viggers, Peter

  Lane, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wakeham, John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Raison, Timothy

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Wall, Patrick

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walters, Dennis

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lloyd, Ian

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Loveridge, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John

  Luce, Richard

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  MacCormick, Iain

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Winterlon, Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  MacGregor, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Younger, Hon George

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mr. Carol Matter and Mr. W. Benyon.

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 315.

  Division No. 169.]

  AYES

  [10.32 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Alison, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Tom

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Channon, Paul

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brittan, Leon

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Banks, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cockcroft, John

  Benyon, W.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Bitten, John

  Buck, Antony

  Cope, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Cordle, John H.

  Blaker, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Cormack, Patrick

  Body, Richard

  Burden, F. A.

  Corrie, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Drayson, Burnaby

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Durant, Tony

  Kitson, Sir Timorthy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lane, David

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawson, Nigel

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Ian

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Strealham)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shersby, Michael

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sims, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Speed, Keith

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marten, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mates, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Good hart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stokes, John

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mills, Peler

  Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grylls, Michael

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hall, Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Trotter, Neville

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Newton, Tony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Normanton, Tom

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wall, Patrick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Walters, Dennis

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wells, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Hurd, Douglas

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Younger, Hon George

  Irving, Charies (Cheltenham)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  James, David

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.

  Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'dl'd)

  Raison, Timothy

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ashton, Joe

  Bates, Alf

  Allaun, Frank

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bean, R. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkinson, Norman

  Beith, A. J.

  Archer, Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ashley, Jack

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  1340

  1341

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Boardman, H.

  Golding, John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Gould, Bryan

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gourlay, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Graham, Ted

  Melllsh, Rt Hon Robert

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Millan, Bruce

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwel)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Buchan, Norman

  Harper, Joseph

  Molloy, William

  Buchanan, Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moonman, Eric

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Moyle, Roland

  Carmichael, Neil

  Heller, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Carter, Ray

  Hooley, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hooson, Enrlyn

  Newens, Stanley

  Cartwright, John

  Horam, John

  Noble, Mike

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Oakes, Gordon

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Huckfield, Les

  Orbach, Maurice

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ovenden, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Owen, Dr David

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Roy (Nwport)

  Padley, Walter

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hunter, Adam

  Palmer, Arthur

  Corbett, Robin

  Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

  Pardoe, John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Park, George

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parker, John

  Crawford, Douglas

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)

  Parry, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Pendry, Tom

  Cryer, Bob

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, Ernest

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  John, Brynmor

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Prescott, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Radlce, Giles

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Deakins, Eric

  Kelley, Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Kinnock, Neil

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Doig, Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roper, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lee, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Edge, Geoff

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Litterick, Tom

  Selby, Harry

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Ennals, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Luard, Evan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Evans John (Newton)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacCormick, Iain

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Skinner, Denner

  Flannery, Martin

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Small, William

  Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Madden, Max

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

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

  Magee, Bryan

  Stoddart, David

  Freeson, Reginald

  Magulre, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Stott, Roger

  Freud, Clement

  Mahon, Simon

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  George, Bruce

  Marquand, David

  Swain, Thomas

  1342

  1343

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ward, Michael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle £)

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Watkinson, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Thorns, Stan (Preston South)

  Weetch, Ken

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tierney, Sydney

  Weitzman, David

  Woodall, Alec

  Thin, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  Woof, Robert

  Tomlinson, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Torney, Tom

  White, James (Pollok)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Urwin, T. W.

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. John Ellis.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Wllley, Rt Hon Hederick

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

  OPERATION OF PARENTS' EXPRESSION OF PREFERENCE OF SCHOOLS
  '(1) In establishing the wishes of parents for choice of secondary school, in accordance with the provisions of section 76 of the Education Act 1944, a local education authority shall provide the opportunity for parents to express their preference of secondary school formally, and in writing, at least six months prior to the date of commencement of that child's secondary schooling.
  (2) Where a county secondary school is over-subscribed following the exercise of parental choice on application, a list of all the applicants to that school shall be sent by the local education authority to the head teacher, together with the appropriate reports and records for each applicant, and it shall be open to that head teacher, in conjunction with the governors of his school, to choose from a list of applicants entries to that school; and he may, if desired, call for interview such applicants as he thinks fit in the same manner as is customary for the voluntary aided schools.
  (3) Where a county secondary school is under-subscribed, the head teacher shall be required to accept all applicants, but will be entitled to call for reports and records of each applicant prior to registration at the school; and the head teacher may request the local education authority to re-allocate a child for whom, in his opinion, the school is unsuitable.
  (4) For individual cases and exceptional circumstances, the local education authority shall have the right to override a head teacher's non-acceptance of a pupil, as provided in subsection (2) above, and insist on the registration of a pupil at that school.
  (5) Head teachers of voluntary schools shall retain the right of admission to the school, whether or not the school is over-subscribed, and may call for reports, records, and interviews as may be required'.—[Dr. Hampson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  10.45 p.m.
  Dr. Hampson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take also New Clause 6 (Transfer of pupils between schools), New Clause 27 (Across boundary choice), New Clause 28 (Choice of schools), New Clause 32 (Amendment to section 36: Selection of schools), New Clause 37 (Annual right of transfer) and New Clause 38 (Application to change school).
  Dr. Hampson: The clauses cover a long list of important aspects of an overriding theme of the Opposition's case in Committee that first and foremost parents have the right to a choice of the sort of education their children shall have and that that is a fundamental part of our education system, a right enshrined in the 1944 Act.
  The basic clauses in this set—New Clauses 4, 37 and 38—draw attention to that general principle, which was so important in the drafting of the 1944 Act, the general principle section of which is Section 76. When that measure came before the House in 1944, introduced by Lord Butler, as he now is, and the then Mr. Chuter Ede, much of the discussion centred on the rights of parents. The Act placed responsibility for the education of children not on the local education authority but fairly and squarely on the parents. It was then the duty of the authority to supply the means by which parents could carry out their responsibility.
  Time and again during the passage of that Act, Members kept returning to that basic point. They asked whether there would be a firm guarantee that parents would have a say which meant something in the education of their children. Section 76 was originally drafted as an amendment to Clause 8 of the 1944 Bill.
  We believe that there is a fundamental right, on which we have let parents down in the years since 1944. Labour Members frequently say that the right of parents to have a say has all too often meant little or next to nothing for the vast bulk of parents. We are trying to produce a scheme, a framework, which would be the basis for giving reality for the first time to that fundamental right which we have always believed that parents possessed.
  Further than that, if parents can be brought into the schools, involved and interested to a far greater extent than has been the case, that will be healthy for the schools and for the children's education. We fall behind other countries in the amount of interest and concern that parents take in the schools attended by their children. Later new clauses make it clear that they have further rôles to play within the school,

  1347
  and that they have a say about what happens in the school, by changing the nature of the governing system and so on. We should find that as a result parents were more involved in the education of their children.
  It is a fundamental fact that for every 1,000 hours a year a child spends in school, he or she spends 8,000 hours outside it. Therefore, the influences of the parent, the home and the environment of which that home is part are fundamental for the education, development and prospects of the child. I should have thought that there was common ground on this on all sides. The point has been put many times in the House and it was put by Labour Members in Committee.
  I therefore feel that we have a good right to expect the Government at least to show sympathy with what we are trying to do and, further, that they will be prepared to go beyond that, particularly in the light of the factors we advanced in argument in Committee when we tried to amend the Bill. We hope that the Government will be in a position to agree to some of the proposals in these new clauses.
  I hope that we shall not get bogged down in the artificial and sterile argument that the Conservative Party supports privilege and believes that richer people who have the means will opt out and buy better education. These new clauses take for granted that we are trying to get choice and that we believe that the secondary system will be comprehensive, because that is the way in which the pattern of education has evolved since the 1944 Act.
  We have said many times, and again tonight, that the whole Conservative philosophy of education is gradualist. That is how we see our proposals operating. That is the essence of education in dealing with children and with the relationship of children and their teachers. It is wrong to try to establish a total approach, a one-solution approach.
  In this organically developing system, what is important is the way in which parents and pupils have choice. We are firmly convinced that by the time young persons reach the age of 14, 15 or 16 they are beginning to decide what they want to do. They are taking a choice as to the road ahead which they wish to follow,
  1348
  whether in a vocational or an academic direction and in what subjects. It is right and proper that they should have some say in deciding what courses they should take.
  We go beyond that and say that the natural corollary involves having a choice of school. It seems inevitable, in the light of public expenditure forecasts and the intentions of the present Government, and of any other Government for the foreseeable future, to limit public expenditure, that the secondary school will be far from comprehensive, if that description means that it will be able to take pupils of all abilities and of the whole ability range, offering as wide a range of courses as all those abilities require.
  Can any hon. Member foresee a situation in which all comprehensive schools will offer the courses necessary to meet all ranges of ability among all their pupils? That would involve their having the whole social and economic range of their areas, since a neighbourhood comprehensive reflects the social environment of its area—unless there were gerrymandering of catchment areas. Comprehensive schools, however, will not all be the same. This must be common ground, because teachers teach differently and have different approaches. A headmaster can establish the tone of his school, and each headmaster will have a different approach.
  The most important point is what I call the inheritance factor. When a comprehensive school is created, it is an amalgam of other schools. If it is formed of two secondary modern schools, especially in a bad social area, or a deprived urban or rural area, it will be a different creation from what would be formed if the amalgam was of a secondary modern and a grammar school. If there is an amalgamation of secondary modern schools, where will be the teachers with degrees and high qualifications? When a grammar school is included, the inheritance factor will provide specialist teachers, language laboratories and the rest.
  Secondary modern schools may have finer vocational traditions, with better woodwork and metalwork shops, and a finer career approach than grammar schools. We have the makings of a diversified system of secondary education. This is not something to scorn, avoid,

  1349
  change or abolish. It is good and should be positively encouraged. With current financial limitations, it will not be easy to build new facilities and to even out the disparities in specialist staffs at various schools.
  The Minister of State and the Secretary of State have recognised in the past few months—not before time—that there is a great shortage of specialised teachers, particularly of mathematics and modern languages. We have urged the Government that instead of slashing across the board the supply of qualified teachers, we need some selectivity so that we promote the areas where there are shortages. The day is far distant when we shall not be short of these specialists.
  Are we to throw young people with great potential in certain areas to the dogs? Are we to condemn them to schools in which their potential, whether vocational or academic, will not be fully developed? Why should we be embarrassed at the thought that some children are academically better than others? No country can survive unless it makes the best use of its academic talents.
  We must make a positive virtue of differences in schools and let children get on and develop in their own way. That should not mean that a bright child should have to go to a school which has no academic stimulus. The Government have abolished the option of direct grant schools, and this will have a particularly serious effect in urban areas where we find neighbourhood ghetto schools with no academic stimulus. Youngsters who show potential at, say, the age of 14 cannot now use the escape hatch of direct grant schools like Bristol, Manchester or Leeds Grammar Schools, when the neighbourhood comprehensive school may not be able to draw out their potential.
  The inevitable consequence of rejecting what I would argue is the mythical concept of comprehensive schools is to switch to the idea of a comprehensive "service" to the community, which is a phrase from the 1944 Act. Therefore, within a given area there would be a range of schools from which parents and pupils could make a choice.
  For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government should have any objection to that approach. The objection
  1350
  which came repeatedly in Committee is the most untenable of all—namely, that every age, aptitude and ability can be catered for in one school. That argument is what I have sought to demolish. That might be the Government's ultimate goal, but how can they be right?
  11.0 p.m.
  As well as the pragmatic and practical aspects, there remains the fundamental right of parents to have some say and choice. All of us have probably had many examples of people drawing our attention to the fact that their children show potential in a subject such as music. A case of this kind has come to my attention, and probably many hon. Members have had a similar experience. The parents know that a school in their area has a good music department as against the school which their child attends, where a teacher who is a specialist in another subject plays the piano for hymns and uses records.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman has said that the comprehensive school is one school. Does he say that a rainbow is of one colour or that a cold buffet is one dish?
  Dr. Hampson: At times I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he cannot possibly have listened to my argument. I began by saying that we accepted that comprehensive schools would all be different. I was not saying that they were uniform.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman said "one school".
  Dr. Hampson: I said that the Government seem to believe that the answer to all education problems is to have one school. We say, on the contrary, that acknowledgment should be given to the need for a variety of schools which give parents and pupils an option.
  If all schools are to be integrated and interdependent, the system will require flexibility. It will require a more flexible attitude on the part of local education authorities. For example, in the case I have cited, the parents of the child who is considered to have potential in music feel that he is not being catered for sufficiently in his present school. As one of the new clauses suggests, that might even involve the transfer of the

  1351
  child across the boundaries of the education authority into the school of another authority.
  Many local education authorities have moved into that sort of system. They are giving a greater flexibility of choice. They are more prepared to consider transfers. That approach, however, is far from standard. It is so fundamental and impartant a principle that we feel it should be part of our education legislation.
  There is no reason to suggest that a system which offered the choice I have described would not work. However, the Government stand on the principle that it would be wrong to recognise differences in schools to the point at which some specialise in certain subjects and others specialise in other subjects. We deny that the Government are taking the right position. We see no reason for there not being specialism.
  The Government may say that it would not be practical to move pupils around, but it happens in Winnipeg and other parts of Canada and in the United States. There is no reason for its not happening here. The Minister of State said on many occasions in Committee that we were paying lip service to Section 76—namely, parental choice. He asked what we meant and how we would operated our system. Tonight we have given him some answers within a broad framework.
  The commitment is enshired in the principle that parents shall have the right to express a preference. That is set out in New Clause 37. It provides that
  "Parents shall have the right to express a preference regarding which of the authority's maintained schools they would like their child to attend".
  Surely they should have that right each year.
  We have had much vociferousness from the Government's Left wing, but basically the Government have to realise that there is a problem, especially in important subjects such as mathematics. There is a perpetual decline. In 1961 The Times stated that urgent action was necessary to stop the decline in standards in mathematics and the declining number of mathematic students at university. The whole problem starts at the lower level, beginning at primary school and continues to university level. Universities
  1352
  now have remedial classes in mathematics and languages. The need has been recognised. It is surely sensible, however, to adopt the sensible proposals which we put forward as a first step to monitoring what is happening in junior and secondary schools, proposals which were enshrined in the Bullock Report. It is not surprising that the Government do not want to debate that report. They do not believe in the basic principles that it propounded.
  The next stage is to use parents to try to get an improvement in the standards of schools. They know their children. Indeed, one can hardly turn round these days without hearing the anxiety of parents about what is happening to their children. If every year they had the right to exercise a preference whether they were happy with their school or whether there was another school which they thought more suitable for their children, I should have thought there would be pressure on the schools to ensure that their standards met the expectations and requirements of parents. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said "That is absolute rubbish" or words to that effect.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said "That is absolute double think". Will he tell us how he can rationalise the remarks he has been making about parents selecting schools of their choice with the situation that we debated earlier in Tameside, where parents did just that, because his friends on the local council washed it out?
  Dr. Hampson: I deny what the hon. Gentleman said. If I got sidetracked into that argument, Mr. Speaker would not be pleased, even at this hour of the night, which is yet young, because we have already gone over that matter. It is not double think at all, because it works. It works in a number of places throughout the world.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that
  "a local education authority shall provide the opportunity for parents to express their preference of secondary school formally, and in writing, at least six months prior to the date of commencement of that child's secondary schooling."

  1353
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) seems highly relevant. I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman is to be honest with the House tonight, he should deal with the point that was put to him—"at least six months"? How far away is September in Manchester?
  Dr. Hampson: I am not clear what the Minister is trying to say. If he feels that there is a problem with the period of six months, I am sure that having accepted the principle, he is capable of changing it. On the other hand, if he is trying to draw me into the Tameside debate again at this stage, I do not think that would be appropriate, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree.
  Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to state an argument in one direction on a principle and then to reverse the principle when it suits him?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been done many times, but I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is doing it.
  Dr. Hampson: That is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that I was doing so either. The hon. Member for Rossendale is letting his hair down this evening. Obviously he was muzzled by his hon. Friend in Committee. Never mind. We appreciate that he has such a marginal seat that he has to keep stirring on any issue he can. The idea that parents have and can exercise the right is far from impracticable, because it operates.
  New Clause 38 would put the onus on local education authorities to inform parents of their right to express a preference regarding the maintained schools in which their children are being educated or to which they could go. There is no reason why that should not be done. It is an easy thing to do. It can be done by notes sent home via the children. In Winnipeg a television advertisement is broadcast. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily do that. It is important, however, that the local education authority should inform parents that they have this right, otherwise we shall not get them involved in the education of their children to the degree that we want.
  Frankly, parents have been conditioned by a system which has virtually ostracized
  1354
  them for many years. They have all been accustomed to what is in many ways a virtue in our system—that the headmaster is autonomous in the school and the teacher is sacrosanct in the classroom. But all too often that has meant that the parent has been kept out and has not been told, let alone consulted, about what happens to the child in the school. It is very important that the local education authority should remind parents of their rights on a regular basis.
  In support of this I cite the study done by Lynch and Pimlott at Southampton University, produced in February this year under the title "Parents and Teachers". Their main conclusion was that:
  "The majority of parents have little desire to interfere in the internal running of the school."
  They go on to say:
  "But there is firm evidence to suggest that many parents would welcome greater information, consultation and involvement in their child's education than is available to them at the moment."
  Frankly, I believe that that is an understatement. We all know how deeply felt this is. There has to be a formula for releasing those tremendous energies which lie in the parents and in the family, which should be involved in the education of the children, so that anxieties may be relieved in regard to standards in certain areas.
  Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the most successful schools in the State sector are those with parent-teacher associations, where there is this involvement?
  Dr. Hampson: That is right. I have been to Glasgow, and it is refreshing to find that the Scots are taking such an interest in the debate. I met people in the university there who had made a point of stimulating parent-teacher associations in the worst areas of Glasgow, with remarkable effect. From next to none these associations have grown to over 100 in number, and they are playing a very important role in the schools. It can be done provided there is the motivation. In many areas it is not there, and the catalyst must be somewhere else. In such cases the catalyst, as we suggest in our new clause, should be the local education authority, which would inform the parents of their rights and also supply them with the appropriate forms, as necessary.

  1355
  The situation might arise in which a very large number of parents started off wanting the same schools. That is an inevitable aspect of it. It is nothing to be pooh-poohed or criticised, because parents reflect the community feelings about the reputations of schools.
  Standards rise and fall in schools, often with the exchange and retirement of staff. The tone of a school can change. I have known schools which over many years have moved from traditional methods to very progressive methods, or vice versa. The sizes of schools also change. Schools in certain growth areas become bigger. A child may be ill at ease in a big, amorphous school and should have the right to move. But a large number of parents and children may want a particular school.
  There has to be the option for the local education authority not just to give a totally wide-ranging choice but possibly to establish a particular zone or catchment area for a school. In that way there would be a prioritising, so to speak, of the choice, either geographically or, better still, as a catchment from the primary schools. When the child attended a feeder school, the parent would have the first preference over those outside the area in requesting a particular school, of whatever sort it might be.
  Hon. Members may not be particularly in support of the actual details. We put down the new clauses because we have often been accused of not having details or proposals but merely a loose commitment to the rights of parents to have a say. It is more than that. Of course we believe that parents have a say, but we also believe that it is perfectly feasible for that say to be exercised in the choice of schools, both between those in the maintained sector and those outside it and between those within the maintained sector, because it is in the maintained sector—and now, indeed, in comprehensive schools in the maintained sector, that the majority of parents are now educating their children.
  11.15 p.m.
  Therefore, we say that parents have a right to have some choice. Parents have a right to know. In later proposals of ours we shall come to knowing about schools, so that parents are not only told
  1356
  that they have a right to choose but have a basis upon which to make their choice and know what is going on in other schools. We want to see that the figures are published and the prospectuses of the schools are made available to them. Also, parents would have a right as later new clauses make evident, to appeal against whatever decision the local education authority came to on their particular claims.
  Not only do we think this to be of fundamental importance, and not only have we demonstrated that it is practicable because it works elsewhere. It has an impeccable pedigree of support—none other than the Secretary of State's present Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is not the rather more attractive one of the pair at present with us on the Front Bench, but the other one, who, I have no doubt, has his attractions. He has certainly been in the job on and off for many years. When he was not in the job, in an article some time ago in The Guardian he recommended this sort of parental choice. Why? It was because he thought that it was healthy to have parents involved in the school. He thought that it exercised a yardstick by which standards could be improved. He even dared to use the term "the use of the market".
  Of the whole of this country, excluding Scotland but including Wales, 82 per cent. of the population live in urban areas. I fully accept that almost inevitably there will be less choice in rural areas under this system, where one has great travelling distances. There is a great problem in rural areas. However, as the vast bulk of people live in urban areas where there will be a wide variety of schools, this system could work.
  I am not quite sure on what basis one determines what is a good school, but if there is a definition of a good school what it is not is anything to do with overall structure. What we are all about is surely the quality of education. That is what we are all after in legislating in this place. Our condemnation of the Bill is that it is not concerned with the qualitative aspect of education. It is concerned purely and simply with structure and with reorganisation of structure. A good school transcends structure. A good school thrives on imaginative leadership, on an enthusiastic staff committed to a

  1357
  curriculum and on adequate resources—which are all too likely now not to be available. It also depends upon the full support of governors and parents.
  I hope that the new clauses receive the approval of the House. In debates in Committee the Government have always paid lip service to their belief in the right of parents to have a say. They have said time and again at every stage "Yes, we want consultation with parents. Yes, Section 76 means something." Let the Government now prove it.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I know that the hour is late, but the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) did not do credit to his intelligence, his expertise in education, or his liberalism. I have rarely heard in this House such a vacuous and misleading speech. Throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman did not address himself to the details of the new clauses. I am scarcely surprised, because on the only occasion when I drew to his attention one of those details, he said what he so often said in Committee: "If the Minister does not like it, the Minister can put something else there." He said that repeatedly in Committee, and he has said it again tonight. However, it is not the task of a responsible Opposition to say "This is just a try on and if the Government do not like it, so long as they put forward something in the same broad area, we shall be perfectly content."
  The hon. Gentleman stressed that throughout his speech. This was typical of the speeches that he made in Committee, when he was constantly trying to conceal from his hon. Friends just how liberal were his own educational views, honestly expressed, and the broad differences between him and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson).
  The hon. Gentleman again repeated the advantage which would arise from the system to the child with ability—the child who can. The hon. Gentleman said that repeatedly in his speech and the whole House heard him. Never once did he mention what happens to the child who cannot. Never once did he say what happens if one concentrates teaching resources entirely upon those able in the subject to the disadvantage of those with lesser ability in that subject.
  1358
  Let me turn to the details of the new clause. New Clause 4 purports to establish a new system of responsibility for admission of pupils to schools. At the moment that responsibility rests with the local education authorities or the school governors or, depending on the school's articles of government, with the school governors specifically. But the Education Acts do not specify how school places are to be allocated, or how parents are to choose between the places available.
  What does the hon. Gentleman put forward in place of the present system? I shall pass over subsection (1) of the new clause fairly rapidly. In particular I shall pass over that part which I quoted earlier—that there should be a period of at least six months before admission when parents shall name their choice of school.
  The House will have noted that the hon. Gentleman was unwilling to comment on the actions of his own party in another part of the country. In any event many LEA's already comply with the requirements of subsection (1). Subsection (2) is of much greater interest.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: If I understand the Minister to say that he approves of LEA's requiring parents to put their children's names down six months before admission, why does he not believe that this right should be enshrined in the law?
  Mr. Fowler: I am not happy about the phrase "putting their children's names down". I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a school which he attended, the system which operated there and the phrases used there, rather than the system which operates for the majority of parents. But I take the point. However, local authorities at present ask parents what their choice of school would be, particularly within the comprehensive system. There is very little point in asking parents within a totally selective system what is their choice of school, because that choice is determined by an examination at 11-plus. Therefore, the suggestion is only relevant within a comprehensive system.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least in London education authority

  1359
  areas when parents are asked to give their first choice it is not actually their first choice? They are expected to go into a lottery to try to pick which school their children are likely to go to. If they do not get that school, they are put right at the bottom of the list. Can he not see the point of allowing them to choose months or even years ahead the school they would like if they had the chance?
  Mr. Fowler: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Nothing in the new clause would affect that situation in the slightest degree.
  The hon. Member just said that parents put down the name of the school they think they will get. It does not make the slightest difference whether the system is enshrined in the law or whether it is operated informally as it is throughout the country. It is not changed by being written into the law. I know that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) is pained by what I am saying. If he wants to intervene I shall give way, because we had such a good relationship in Committee, but I do not think that he has a new point to raise.
  Subsection (2) of the new clause gives the ultimate power of admission to a head teacher:
  "Where a county secondary school is oversubscribed following the exercise of parental choice on application, a list of all the applicants to that school shall be sent by the local education authority to the head teacher, together with the appropriate reports and records for each applicant, and it shall be open to that head teacher, in conjunction with the governors of his school, to choose from a list of applicants entries to that school".
  So all power resides—
  Mr. Peter Morrison: Read the rest.
  Mr. Fowler: I shall happily do so:
  …and he may, if desired, call for interview such applicants as he thinks fit in the same manner as is customary for the voluntary aided schools."
  The hon. Member seems to think that we are still on the clause dealing with literacy tests.
  Those words have only one meaning —that all power shall reside with the head teacher. The Opposition continually said in Committee that the great evil of the Bill was that it took away the
  1360
  power of LEAs. Where is power for the LEAs in this subsection? It has totally disappeared and is passed to the head teacher. All we are left with is a perfunctory reference to the head teacher acting "in conjunction with" the governors, a power that I could not begin to interpret.
  Mr. Cormack: That is surely a distortion. There is all the difference in the world between a local authority having autonomy in the policy in its own area and a head teacher having autonomy in the school to which he has been appointed by the local authority, and there is nothing incompatible between the two.
  Mr. Fowler: No one suggested that head teachers should not have autonomy within the schools to which they have been appointed by the local authority. But we are talking about admissions policy, which is a major element in the responsibilities of LEAs. The Opposition propose to take that responsibility away and to offer it to head teachers.
  Mr. Cormack: No.
  Mr. Fowler: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying, "No, I want the words to mean something other than what they patently mean."
  Mr. Cormack: But this idea already works well in voluntary aided schools. I have children at a State voluntary aided school where the head teacher has this right. It works well and the spirit in the school is better than at many others.
  Mr. Fowler: But we are not talking purely about voluntary aided schools.
  Mr. Peter Morrison: But we are, and it works.
  Mr. Fowler: The new clause does not talk about voluntary aided schools in general. We shall come to them in a moment, because the system that the hon. Gentleman talks about is not general. In voluntary aided schools the power of admission in general resides with the governors. Whether they wish to delegate it to the head teacher is a different question. It does not reside with the head teacher any more than at the moment the power of admission resides with the head teacher in a county secondary school. There is only one meaning to

  1361
  the words of the amendment—the Opposition want to take away LEAs' power to determine admissions policy in their own areas.
  Subsection (3) essentially contains little change from the present position, except that once again the head teacher is put in the position at present occupied by the local education authority or the governors. This time we do not even get a courteous reference to the governors.
  11.30 p.m.
  Then comes subsection (4) in this long list of subsections determining where power and responsibility shall lie:
  "For individual cases and exceptional circumstances"—
  here the local education authority comes into its own—
  "the local education authority shall have the right to override a head teacher's non-acceptance of a pupil, as provided in subsection (2) above, and insist on the registration of a pupil at that school."
  I am glad that the local education authority has some residual power under the Opposition's proposal. The subsection refers to:
  "individual cases and exceptional circumstances".
  What about the general run of circumstances and the general admissions policy? The LEA is left with precisely nothing on the basis of the clause.
  Finally, there is subsection (5):
  "Head teachers of voluntary schools shall retain the right of admission to the school, whether or not the school is over-subscribed, and may call for reports, records, and interviews as may be required."
  I alluded to that a moment ago when the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) intervened. "Head teachers shall retain", but in general they do not have that right except so far as it is delegated to them by the governors of the school. The wording of the clause is clearly deficient.
  I do not intend to detain the House by talking at length about the other clauses, which are all as deficient as the one with which I have just dealt. I suppose that I should say something about each of them, if only to make the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) happy. I sat through 35 Sittings of the Committee to gratify the hon. Member for Dorking, and I do not want to break that habit.
  1362
  Let us look briefly at New Clause 6, which reads as follows:
  "Local education authorities shall provide for the transfer of children from one secondary school to another, either within or outside the area of that local education authority, in accordance with the wishes of the parents and the changing requirements of the child; and such transfer of children shall be with the agreement of the head teacher of the receiving school."
  The clause is designed to complement New Clause 4 by dealing with transfer cases, although the hon. Gentleman did not say so. Successive Secretaries of State, in the light of legal advice, have expected local education authorities and governors to observe, when parents ask for their children to be transferred, principles based on the criteria of Section 37 of the 1944 Act. The effect of this is that the parent's wish will normally be respected except where the proposed new school would be unsuitable to the child or his attendance there would involve unreasonable expense to the LEA—or, in particular circumstances, the proposed change of school would be inexpedient in the interests of the child.
  The clause would remove from the transfer process every voice except that of the parent and the head teacher of the receiving school. There is no suggestion that their decisions should have any regard to questions of resources. In Committee we became used to the Opposition's putting forward proposals which would entail considerable but unquantifiable increases in public expenditure. That is what we have come to expect of the Opposition. There is no suggestion that the decision should have any re and to educational policy or to any other criterion save the wishes of the parent and the head teacher—not even the interests of the child, except for the vague reference to his "changing requirements", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.
  Mr. Skeet: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account the position of Asians being transferred to another school? The parents may have strong views for sociological reasons. Is that not a criterion which should be considered?
  Mr. Fowler: I am sure that it is a criterion which is relevant but it does not seem to me remotely relevant to the new clause.
  Mr. Skeet: Read the new clause.
  Mr. Fowler: I have read it out to the House. Again, I stress that there is no place in it for any criterion save the wishes of the parents and the head teachers. Once again, the function of the local education authority is as an office handling papers. It would be open to a head teacher to accept any number of children whose parents wished them to transfer from other schools, irrespective of all the normal rational considerations. The new clause would make total nonsense of the administration of the maintained schools system, and I am sure that the House will reject it totally on those grounds.
  Sir G. Sinclair: Would the hon. Gentleman modify his statement slightly? He tried to make the point that the new clause made no mention of educational considerations and that it would be entirely a matter for the parents' wishes. As a parent, he must surely accept that a parent takes great cognisance of the varying educational needs of the child at the time, and that between that child, the parents and the head teacher there is surely a very good assessment of the educational needs of the child. There is no need to put it more explicitly in the new clause.
  Mr. Fowler: As so often, I find it hard to dissent from the general principle of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that parents know their own children—at least some of them do. Some head teachers know their children in their schools. But that in no way justifies a new clause which would write the local education authority and the governors out of the administration of admissions and transfer policy within the maintained system. I agree as a matter of principle with the hon. Gentleman but that does not mean that we can accept the extraordinary words of the new clause.
  Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman had to say whether the parents, the local education authority or the head teacher were the most important, would he put the parents or the local education authority at the top of the list?
  Mr. Fowler: I would not put any of them at the top of the list. I would put the child at the top. The interests of the
  1364
  children must be paramount in our consideration of the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not surprised by the protests from the Opposition. Many hon. Members opposite are not motivated by a defence of the interests of children but have other motives which I should not spell out at this moment, but they are clear enough.
  New Clause 27 would not break new ground. The present legislation on the admission of pupils to schools is administered in such a way that parental choice of school will always be upheld unless the local education authority can show either that the school selected is unsuitable for the child's age, ability or aptitude, or that his attendance there would cause unreasonable expense to the authority. If the home authority can offer a place at a suitable school within a reasonable travelling distance, it may well be relunctant to pay the extra-district fee, in which case the other authority may be reluctant to admit a child to the school as it is not going to receive the extra-district fee. We hope that the authorities will be flexible about admissions from the areas of adjoining authorities to fill marginal places remaining in schools close to their boundaries after the needs of their own areas have been met.
  Nothing in the new clause would change the position, and parents would have no greater choice than they enjoy at present. Indeed, the addition of this clause would only raise false expectations, and I urge the House to reject it.
  Really, I think that the less said about New Clause 28, the better. Parents are free to choose between the available maintained schools to the extent which is compatible with proper education, and the sensible use of local resources. That is the way in which Secretaries of State of both parties have administered the present law. It is not clear whether this new clause is intended to sweep away the present limitations of the law, and allow the parents' right to choose a school to take precedence over all other criteria, including the educational interests of the child. If this is not the intention of the new clause, it appears to add nothing to what already exists in relation to the wishes of parents.
  The other new clause adds precisely nothing to New Clause 4, and I pass over them in silence.

  1365
  What we have heard tonight is a speech of some interest—although not always of total candour—of Opposition policy. But the speech bore very little relation to the suggested new clauses. These new clauses are such patent nonsense that I hope we shall spend very little time on them.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) on the way he introduced the new clause. If the Minister cannot understand what motivates us in supporting it, I can tell him that we support it not for party political purposes but simply because so many of our constituents have come to us week after week with tragic reasons and cases in which they have been prevented by local education authorities from sending their children to the school of their choice. This is something which has been happening for years—ever since the 1944 Education Act, in fact.
  We believe that the time has come to put it right. I welcome the seven new clauses which we are debating. Not one of them would cost the Government an extra penny, and they would fulfil the wishes of many parents and their children. Another good reason for introducing them and for including them in the Bill is that they would stimulate a welcome element of competition among local education authorities. If we can stimulate this competition, it is only for the good of education and the good of the child.
  I can give two examples of depicting why it is essential to give parents a much wider choice of the schools to which their children go. The first relates to a system of education which we have in Leicestershire which is known as the Leicestershire plan. It is a form of comprehensive education which is very popular among the parents of the children who are educated under it.
  A few years ago, parts of the county of Leicester which operated the plan were due to be transferred into the city of Leicester which did not operate it. The change arose from proposals by the Boundary Commissioners. The parents of the children who were covered by the plan wrote me nearly 5,000 letters saying that they wanted to remain under the
  1366
  plan. If we had at that time had this Bill with New Clause 6 included, so great would have been the flood of applications from parents in the city to get their children into the county plan schools that the city would have been compelled to introduce a similar plan to avoid its schools being emptied.
  My other example relates to Countesthorpe College, which was within my constituency until a couple of years ago. In this case there was grave disquiet among the parents of many of the children at the college over the manner of education their children were receiving. Eventually I led a deputation to the then Minister of Education in relation to the county's view that parents had no freedom of choice but had to send their children to Countesthorpe. We appealed under Section 76 of the 1944 Act.
  I know from what happened that the only way in which parents who were desperately anxious about the system at the college were able to exercise a choice and remove their children from what they regarded as a perilous system of education was to move their home lock, stock and barrel to another catchment area.
  Perhaps I may refer to Section 76 of the 1944 Act. New Clause 4 provides parents with an opportunity to express a preference, but that only emphasises the intentions of those who instituted the 1944 Act. Section 76, under the heading
  "Pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents",
  states
  "In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
  That was one of the fundamental principles of the 1944 Act. I do not need to remind the House that, if a parent thought that that was being ignored by the local education authority, the right to appeal to the Minister still exists.
  I support the new clauses because they put into black and white that which should have been put into black and white years ago. I prefer the wording in New Clause

  1367
  6, which relates to the transfer of pupils between schools, to the wording in New Clause 27, because that gives local education authorities the right of veto. My constituents and I have learned that, if one gives aducation authorities the right of veto, parental choice disappears. New Clause 6 does not give that right of veto. It leaves it to the parents and intaking headmasters to decide, but New Clause 27 requires the consent of the local education authority, which is undesirable.
  All hon. Members have heard of examples of the tragic cases of children who are not able to go to the school of their parents' choice. Only last week a silly decision was taken over a child on the southern fringes of Leicestershire who wanted to attend a school in Northamptonshire and who had been accepted for a special course. That child's transfer was vetoed by the Leicestershire education authority and she now has to attend a Leicester city school, which means that her journey time is trebled. That was a stupid decision, and it is that sort of situation that we are trying to put right.
  The group of new clauses enshrines the principle of choice by establishing a parent's right of choice on the grounds of religion or curriculum. A parent might wish to send a child to a school which specialises in music, the arts or sport. A parent might have a relative who sends a child to a particular school and might want to follow in the same path. It might be more convenient to send a child to a particular school because the parent works outside an area, and it might be easier for that child to be dropped off at a particular school. There may be no apparent reason for a choice of school, but a parent must be allowed to make the choice. A parent may wish a child to go to a school with strong discipline or send a child to a school like Countesthorpe, which is run on a tribal basis.
  We do not think it right that the State should dictate in this matter. We support a policy of building schools to satisfy parental demand rather than a policy which involves local education authority direction.
  Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Will my hon. Friend give us details of this interesting tribal system?
  Mr. Farr: Out of deference to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into more detail, though not because I do not have a detailed knowledge of how it operates, with its moot, which governs all day-to-day activities in the college. But it is not in my constituency any more, and it has not been since the February 1974 election. Probably without my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) being present it would not be right to dwell upon it. I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend, but I shall speak to him afterwards in the Smoking Room.
  The Socialists are great believers in directions. It is so much more convenient for bureaucrats, particularly Socialist bureaucrats, to direct people hither and thither. It is more convenient if parents and pupils conform to a pattern, and it is very inconvenient if they do not all wish to be herded together in the same pupil flow. The Labour Party has always rejected customer and consumer choice. One can think, for example, of its stupid outlook over television. For years it resisted having more than the BBC State channels. That outlook is reflected even today in its attitude to competition with British Airways by any independent operator in this country.
  The same applies to education. Apparently the Socialists are not even prepared to allow us to pass this group of new clauses, which would promote some competition within the State system of education. It is a disgrace that after 32 years of operation of the Butler Education Act we have a Socialist Government still resisting one of the cornerstones of that great Act—namely, the thesis of parental choice.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In his last few remarks the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoilt his whole speech. They were nonsense. The large majority of people, including hon. Members, recognise the need for as much parental choice as possible. If a parent is sending his child to primary school and School A uses traditional teaching methods while School B uses experimental methods, he should have as much right as possible to choose by which of those two types of teaching method he wishes his child to be taught. I would fight strongly to send my child to a school where the

  1369
  method was relatively traditional, because I believe in that method. Other people have different beliefs.
  I accept that we want as much choice as possible, but I want to show the weakness of New Clause 4. Subsection (2) says that parents will make their first choice. It will then be left to the head teacher to decide which of the children who have chosen his school he will accept. The subsection says that
  "Where a county secondary school is oversubscribed following the exercise of parental choice"
  the head teacher shall make the decision.
  I speak as an ex-head teacher. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) rightly said that there were some good schools and some less good schools. There may well be two schools side by side, one with a relatively good reputation and the other with a less good reputation.
  12 midnight.
  It may well be that the mass of parental choice would be for the school of good reputation. That would be natural and normal. If one is to leave the choice of which pupils enter the school to the head teacher, the temptation must be for that head teacher to choose the best academic children out of the applicants, or possibly the most polite, or to use some other criterion, the head teacher will, for sociological reasons, choose the best pupils, perhaps on academic grounds, so that the school will be filled with the best pupils, chosen on academic lines, and the others who are unsuccessful will go to the school in category three, the under-subscribed school. The school with the good reputation will be able to improve it further, the other school will never have the chance to get out of the rut and to improve its reputation.
  That is why a decision on these lines must be left to the education authority which can try to ensure that a range of abilities and social classes goes to each school to ensure that each school has a proper opportunity, with the right material, to improve its reputation.
  Mr. John Page: I am listening with great interest and, as usual, with admiration, to what the hon. Member is saying, except for his conclusion. Does he not feel that by taking away the parental choice of school and giving it back into the hands of the education
  1370
  authority so that there shall be a kind of levelling he will emphasise and continue the mediocrity of the less good school? Does he not feel that this emphasises that one should improve the standards of the lower school and possibly change the head?
  Mr. Mitchell: No. In the over-subscribed school, if it is a school of between 500 and 1,000, somebody has to make a choice. All I am saying is that it should not be left entirely to the head teacher, who will automatically choose the best 500, so that one will get an elitist school. The education authority should have a say so that one gets a spread and a different 500. It is essential that we do everything to ensure that we do not get one group of schools which becomes elitist and another group which never get the opportunity of getting out of their situation.
  Dr. Boyson: Reference has been made to the effect on child, family and parent of the question of choice, but little reference has been made to the effect on the school itself. There is a world of difference between running a school where parents have chosen the school and have been interviewed by the head, where the school is one of volunteers and running a school, even with the same people in it, and a school of the same children who have been directed there by faceless bureaucrats.
  There is no doubt that the morale of the public school system—I have never been there, never taught in them, and nor have my children been there—arises from the ability to recruit good children and to get the good standards which many of those schools maintain, is because of the motivation of the children, knowing that their parents have chosen the school. Parent and family choose the kind of school where the values are the same as those of the home and there is no gap between the values of home and school. But if the parent is directed to send the child to a local neighbourhood, unhappy, school, to which the child does not want to go, the child does not like the methods there.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) had a distinguished teaching career and that there was heavy over-subscribing at his school. People probably queued for miles to get their children in. The best way

  1371
  of improving a bad school would be to threaten it with closure. As long as it has a guaranteed audience, there will be no improvements.
  There are schools in London, which I shall name if anyone wishes me to do so, though it will do the schools no good, which have been dependent on a conscript audience for 15 or 20 years and where more than one in five of the children did not want to go there. Nothing tangible has been done to improve standards so that parents and children might want to go to the schools.
  We are aware of teacher unemployment—
  Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): The hon. Gentleman should go back to teaching.
  Dr. Boyson: We welcome a new hon. Member to our debate, but we do not welcome the utter moral arrogance shown by some hon. Members opposite who think that they are the only ones with passion and concern. They have a kind of religious purity about it. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Otherwise he should stop mumbling into the wind.
  Reference was made by the Minister of State to the effect that most parents do not know what is best for their children and that the bureaucrats in local education offices know better.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not say that. We shall make better progress if he does not distort our arguments.
  Dr. Boyson: That is the view we thought the Minister was putting forward. If it was not, I am glad.
  We believe in people. We believe that if we give people responsibility, they will make better decisions than clerks and bureaucrats. We believe in people; the Government believe in mandarins.
  Our view of participation is not that people should sit on powerless committees, but that they should have a choice of schools, where they live, and the other things that matter in their lives
  Mr. Flannery: If the 11-plus exam had taken place in Tameside as the hon.
  1372
  Gentleman advocated, 20 per cent. of the children would have gone to grammar schools. What choice would the other 80 per cent. of parents have had?
  Dr. Boyson: I always enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). They show that we on this side have a lot of educating to do in getting our view over. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) must stop making interruptions from a sedentary position.
  Dr. Boyson: If there had been an 11-plus in Tameside this year, at least 20 per cent. of parents would have had a choice. I should like a system in which 100 per cent. of parents had a choice, but Labour Members want a system where no one has a choice.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Boyson: I give way to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).
  Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman please face the facts about Tameside? If he examines the situation he will note, according to the figures that have been produced, that 88 per cent. of parents would have had their first choice under the old system and over 96 per cent. would have had their first or second choice. Under the 11-plus system, only approximately 20 per cent. of children will go to the schools that their parents have chosen.
  Dr. Boyson: I know about the system of parental choice in London. The heads of primary schools received letters instructing them to tell parents that their children could not go to school X unless they lived, for example, on a specified side of the Holloway Road. If the parents did not live on that side of the road, they did not get the choice. That was parental choice.
  I refer to the Tameside figures again—I trust that I do so for the last time—so that we shall all remember them. It was claimed that 88 per cent. of parents got their first choice. If we believe the Press release from the local education authority only 360 of the 3,000 children did not get their first choice. I now repeat some figures that can be checked. In fact,

  1373
  I know that they have been checked by parts of the media.
  A letter was sent out by the Conservative authority asking parents whether they were satisfied with their first choice of school. If they wanted a different choice of school, they were asked to reply to the authority and to give the details. The 3,000 letters were sent out a fortnight ago—I know that it is time that I had more up-to-date figures—and within two days there were 700 replies. There were not just 360 replies from those who are supposed not to have had their first choice, but 700 replies asking for a different choice of school. Many people did not ask for a grammar school, but a change from one secondary modern to another.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter and allowing me to demonstrate how artificial parental choice is in the present system.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler Mr. Gerry Fowler rose—
  Mr. Boyson: I shall explain what choice means. It means that those who want single-sex schools can have them. It means that children can participate in certain sports if their parents want them to do so. The difference in my native Lancashire between rugger schools and soccer schools was fundamental, depending on which town or street one came from. Reference has been made to discipline and whether parents are prepared to let their children travel, as well as the question of family relationships. These things matter to ordinary families living in ordinary streets. It is not elitist to desire to give such people the maximum possible choice.
  I made the point earlier that with a falling birth rate we shall be going through a period when there will be vacancies amounting to 20 per cent. of the total number of places in our secondary schools. That will be the position in about five or six years. What will happen then? Will the present system allow more choice to be given to parents? The answer is "No". The local authorities will close their older schools. In many areas they will keep open the concrete monstrosities that nobody wants.
  This is the very time to test what parents want if one believes in parents. If there are those who do not believe in
  1374
  parents but in bureaucrats, let us identify them. But if we believe in parents, who breed children and normally look after them better than any bureaucrat, now is the time to test what parents want.
  That will test the honesty of Labour Members. I know the honesty of most of them and I do not challenge it, but let us see how far they are prepared to give parental choice. The forthcoming vacancies mean that for the first time for a long time it will be possible to give real and genuine parental choice throughout the length and breadth of many parts of the country.
  My only other point—I realise that time is getting on and there are many other clauses that we want to examine as the week progresses—is to emphasise to whom children belong. I begin by saying what makes a good school. In most cases there is a good school when the children go there with the backing of the parents, when the parents share the school's values and give it their support.
  12.15 a.m.
  To whom do children belong? I suggest that 95 per cent. or 98 per cent. of parents look after their children better than anybody else does. They will make judgments on their children better than anybody else does. By all means let them consult the teachers on what is best for their children, but the decision should be theirs. After all, if a doctor tells a patient that he has appendicitis, it is for the patient to decide whether to have his appendix taken out. The patient has that right. Indeed, doctors sometimes make mistakes. Amazing things can happen in such situations.
  Parents know their children. They have seen their development from birth. Advice should be made available to them —possibly through citizens' advice bureaux—but the choice must be theirs.
  I am not maligning teachers. Most schools do their best for children, but they see only part of them in school. Schools see children as playing in the first eleven—the sports master will like that—or as getting good A-levels and a place at Cambridge.
  I am sure that local education authorities are comprised of good people who behave well at home and who do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Apart from that, all they want is balanced

  1375
  numbers in the schools. They are not bleeding for individual children. They want balanced numbers. They can then go off home or to the golf club and live happily ever after. The only people who are really concerned about children and who want the best for them are the parents. Therefore, I should back the parents' choice of school against the experts and the bureaucrats.
  Reference has been made to the right to transfer from one local education authority area to another. The right of continuance of transfer from one local education authority area to another was written into the London Government Act 1963. Members of Parliament for the areas affected have had to fight for every child concerned to get into different schools. Each local education authority has virtually built a barbed wire fence round its area and is concerned only to fill its schools. It is not concerned about the children at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is disgraceful. There is now almost no movement between areas. The right of transfer and of showing that parents and children matter more than anything else is important. It is for that reason that I support the new clauses.
  Mr. David Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) opened the debate on these new clauses in a reasonable way. One of the most depressing features about the Bill is the emphasis that it puts on compulsion and control. My hon. Friend referred to the real anxiety of parents at the present situation—in particular, the falling standards in schools.
  We in this House should ask ourselves why parents are so anxious. Is it not because schools are now to be judged by this Government on whether they are politically acceptable rather than whether they are educationally sound? It is surely that paradox in the Government's approach that needs some clause or clauses to enshrine the rights of parents.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) quoted Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, because that Act laid great stress upon the rights of parents. But is it not a depressing fact that, much as we may search through the Bill, there is no mention of the word "parent", the word
  1376
  "choice" or the word "freedom"? This must surely lead the House to accept these new clauses.
  Parents are very worried indeed. In my constituency, in Wirral, we have very good schools. They are good not because they are politically acceptable but because they produce excellent results and very well educated children. The parents are very worried indeed, because if the Bill becomes law without any clause enshrining freedom of choice for parents those good schools will be compelled to change.
  In this country our schools have evolved over a very large number of years. They are schools which enshrine differing standards, with differing emphasis on particular subjects, technical or academic, and with different emphasis on academic brilliance or practical ability. They have evolved over centuries.
  The Government now seek to say that the comprehensive school is not just a good school—I accept that hypothesis—but that there can be no school other than a comprehensive, thereby sweeping away all the experience that has been built up through the centuries and imposing a hotch-pot solution in an area where parents have very grave reason already to fear that standards are falling.
  The Bill, which is striving to drive us all through the same school, also comes at a time when there are little or no funds available to do the task that the Government expect local authorities to do. What is to be the result of this? I believe that the result will be the creation of what are known as monster schools—large schools on differing sites—which have been the hallmark of this very destructive Socialist policy that we have seen in education.
  Some hon. Members may say that the larger the school the better, but the larger the school the less parental choice there is. That must follow. The larger school is not the better school. I know many parents who are very worried about the lack of control in a very large school. There is considerable time wasted. This affects both the staff and the pupils as they move between sites which are very far apart. There are also the traffic dangers involved in moving from place to place.
  What about the unity of the school, the unity of the parents and the teachers,

  1377
  of the teaching staff and the children, the ability to know the individual child and be able to name the individual child in the particular school? The discipline that a headmaster can engender by his personal knowledge of the pupil is essential in the system of education that we have today.
  If hon. Members had attended the last debate, when we discussed minimum standards, they would have known of the very real anxieties of parents at the present time. In my constituency there is a school—other hon. Members probably have many similar schools in their own constituencies—called Pensby County Secondary School for Girls. If the Bill is passed it will be forced to amalgamate, thereby creating an amorphous mass of a school with well over 1,000 pupils. I think that that is far too large. Indeed, the fears of the parents are very real.
  What the Government are seeking to do, apparently, is to destroy parental choice. The lack of reference in the Bill to parental freedom is very clear. When my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked the Minister of State whether he would put the parent or the local authority first, the Minister of State said "I would put the child first." I felt that in saying that he was expressing the view of the present Government that the Minister knows far better than parents and far better than local authorities who know their local area. He is the one to say how education should be conducted in every area throughout the country. He is the man who knows best.
  All I say to the Minister is that the only achievement he is reaching is to play politics with the lives and education of children, because unless these new clauses are accepted Section 76 will be no more. We shall be compelled to have one uniform type of school throughout the country.
  When the Prime Minister talks on television about preserving the basic freedoms, let him reflect on the fact that the present Government are destroying Section 76, destroying freedom of choice for parents and destroying one of the basic freedoms in this country.
  Mr. John Page: You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that until about
  1378
  an hour ago I had had rather a good day. On the whole, things had gone right. On listening to the speech of the Minister of State, however, I suddenly became unutterably depresed. His arrogant intellectual superiority was extremely evident. I was reminded very much of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who, like the Minister of State, is able to inculcate into the Opposition a sense of immediate anger and frustration as soon as she rises to speak. Recently a former Member of this House, Sir John Foster, chided the right hon. Lady on one occasion and gave her some advice which I should like, in a most friendly way, to pass on to the Minister of State. That is that, although we know how superior he is to the rest of us, the more stupid we are the more we hate being told we are stupid. To get our co-operation, it is ever so much easier for the hon. Gentleman to lead us by the hand than to bang us on the head.
  That is the last direct reference to the Minister of State that I shall make, although I must add that his speech showed that he believes that the man in Curzon Street knows best; leave it to him and the chaps in the local education authorities, and let the parents, children and teachers get on with the job—because they will be dealt the hand and that is the hand they will have to play. [Interruption.] It is very interesting that Tribune Group Members are agreeing so much with the assessment of the speeches.
  The only result of a refusal to accept Clause 4—I apologise, it is New Clause 4. I expect that there will be a few new clause fours before the present Prime Minister has finished his run. However, this New Clause 4 imposes upon the country as a whole the one-type neighbourhood comprehensive school. That is it, and that is the lot.
  12.30 a.m.
  The main result of this in Middlesex will be that the price of houses in my constituency go up by another £2,000. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the intellectual and responsible attitude of the parents who live in Harrow, West, more and more people will want to send their children to the schools within my constituency boundaries. My own view is that parents should be given a greater choice, and

  1379
  this is what we have put forward in the new clauses.
  I was hoping that by now the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) would have returned while I made a witty rebuttal of his remarks. He said that comprehensive schools might not be uniformly good or bad but that in a comprehensive school one can have a complete total. He asked why one should think that the rainbow would comprise only one colour and why a cold buffet would have the taste of only one dish. I am thinking of why the rainbow should be only of one colour. I achieved an O-level in physics and I remember that if one shone a small lamp on to a prism the light passed through the prism, and when it came out on the other side, on to the white piece of paper, there were all the colours of the spectrum. I believe that the Government's policy is to compress all the colours of the spectrum back through the prism and to present simply one uniform white light. In regard to the cold buffet, I have a feeling that many of us who go to various dining rooms would find that this is exactly the case —that the dishes all taste the same, red herrings and others.
  I beg the Secretary of State to come from his ivory tower and accept New Clause 27. The Minister of State said it would make absolutely no difference at all because the powers conferred by New Clause 27 already exist. However it would be a comfort to the parents if the Bill allowed children to enjoy a choice of schools outside the local education authority area.
  I had to fight hard with the Hillingdon council to allow the children of one of my constituents to attend a school the playing fields of which actually bordered on to the garden of their home. It took about a year's fight for this to happen. Let the Bill allow parents to have that right. From the cost point of view, I believe that on a "knock-for-knock" basis it would not be too expensive to the different education authorities.
  The Minister of State totally ignored one of the major parts of New Clause 28 —its reference to maintained schools. Perhaps this is because, under Clause 5(1) and (3) of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have power not to allow local authorities to send children to non-
  1380
  maintained schools. Can we have a categorical assurance that he has no intention of removing the right of local authorities to send children to such schools if it is their wish?
  Mr. Mulley: I have been so persuaded by the eloquence of Tory Members that we should enshrine the 1944 Act that I am restoring the situation with regard to expenditure outside the public sector to what it was in the 1944 Act—in other words, the local education authority has to get the approval of the Secretary of State for such expenditure.
  Mr. Page: I hope that one of my hon. Friends who is better able to deal with the oracular utterances of the Secretary of State will comment on that, because I have a curious feeling that it is rather important.
  Many of my constituents enjoy sending their children, aided by the local authority, to many excellent non-maintained schools in the area. They believe that it gives them choice and that this freedom should not be taken from them. If he will not accept New Clause 4, I beg the Secretary of State to accept New Clauses 27 and 28.
  Sir George Sinclair: Let us get away for a moment from the details of these clauses. They are a serious attempt to recognise more clearly the responsibilities of parents and to encourage them to participate more fully in choosing schools for their young. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) gave some vivid examples of how parents had been drawn into greater participation in various areas of Glasgow and how the local education authority thought that this had had an entirely good effect on schooling in the area. That is an important initiative. The example should be followed purposefully by other LEAs which do not have such a close communication with parents and schools.
  That example we were given was from Glasgow, and that was a new initiative. In Wales there has always, I understand, been far closer communication between parents, schools and local authorities than in most other parts of Britain. That has had a good effect on the whole tone of the schools because parents, children and teachers together have been aiming in one direction.

  1381
  We are anxious that parents should participate more closely in the conduct of schools. There are big changes taking place in society, and some schools have, as a result, run into difficulties with which local education authorities have not always been able to cope. We aim to bring the under-used resource of parents and their concern for their children to help with the running of the schools. We want to give parents greater choice, to invite them to exercise their responsibilities more fully, to get more involved and to play a greater part in the whole educational movement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke with great eloquence and conviction of the Leicestershire scheme, of which he has had personal experience. The evidence from that area is that, where parents are taken into closer participation, the education system is much more acceptable to them. Those Leicestershire parents were prepared to defend their system tooth and nail when they thought that it might be taken from them. We heard a similar story from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), who spoke eloquently of the experience of his area; and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) spoke about similar experiences with a vigour which electrified hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  But no one can speak with more authority on this subject than can my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who as a headmaster evoked the strong support of parents in the area round his school. That was why his school was so enormously successful. It became the school of first choice for parents in the immediate vicinity and far beyond.
  We must listen to the evidence of the good that comes from bringing in parents to back up the local education authority and the efforts in the schools. From the areas that have been described tonight there has emerged evidence of a good case. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State attach importance to participation by parents, but organisationally they have taken no steps to confirm that belief. They have not shown it in the Bill or in the debates.
  12.45 a.m.
  What we are seeking to do in the first of these new clauses is to transfer more
  1382
  power to parents. There would be a triangle of the head teacher, the child and the parents, trying to work out what is the best school for the child. Surely it is a healthy change of emphasis to give more power to the parents and less power to the local authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman means the rich parents."] I do not mean the rich parents. I am talking entirely of the maintained sector and the choice within it. It was unworthy of the interrupter to suggest that I was not dealing with that problem. Our concern in these new clauses is to aim at the maximum range of choice within the maintained sector.
  If the exercise of parental choice results in heavy pressure on one school, with an open withdrawal of confidence from some others, surely that should be a storm warning to the local authority that it must do something about such schools, and quickly. The school should not go on in weakness for 15 years before remedial action is taken.
  Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State believe that in the end our responsibility is to the child, and to allow a school to be below standard for years is doing no service to the children or the neighbourhood and is bringing the maintained sector into disrepute. The spur to remedial action is the exercise of parental choice, which shows which schools are losing the confidence of the parents of the area. That would be one of the great advantages of these new clauses.
  New Clause 6 deals with the transfer of pupils between schools. There are many legitimate reasons for which parents wish their children to be transferred from one school to another. Most important of all is the courses that a child seeks and to which his abilities are best attuned. They may not exist in one school at the right level. Therefore, there should be a choice, by consultation between parents, headmasters and the local authority, for making a change at any stage where it appears that the child is not being allowed to use his full capacity because the courses he wants to follow, quite legitimately because of his capabilities, are not there at the right level.
  It is a wrong use of educational resources not to allow children to be transferred to schools where the courses from which they can best benefit are provided.

  1383
  This applies whether the course concerned is in the maintained sector or outside it. Educational resources are not so richly spread across the country that we can afford to under-use them.
  There are other very special needs as well—brothers and sisters being allowed to attend the same school, the rationalisation of family transport, the change in residence of the parents, and the travelling pattern of the husband, who can perhaps take the children to school each morning and, with any luck, bring them back again in the evening.
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has dealt at great length with the question of transfer, and he also mentioned that we were talking not about well-to-do people but about all children. He is now talking about the cost of transport for schoolchildren and about transporting them in motor cars. I should tell him that working-class families in my constituency certainly cannot afford that sort of thing. Is the hon. Member going to offer, from public funds, the choice for children to travel to school, or is it going to rest with the parents in each case?
  Sir G. Sinclair: If there is a satisfactory school in the neighbourhood but the parents nevertheless prefer another school, they must vote with their own pockets as well. There is a great deal that can be done to share transport. It is being done all over the country as the Government can no longer sustain social services at the standard of recent years and local authorities are having to cut the money spent on school transport. This is being cut down all over the country, and in my county, as elsewhere, parents are increasingly having to join together in making the best of their joint resources to get their children to school and back. There is an element of self-reliance here when other resources are being withdrawn.
  There are other needs too. There are the special needs of children, who, through their own fault or through no fault of their own, have become at loggerheads with the school they are attending. I do not apportion blame, but obviously it is a misery for the child to remain there, and it sometimes becomes unacceptable also for his companions. It is merciful in these circumstances to get a
  1384
  transfer between schools and to give the child the opportunity of a fresh start.
  Then there is the case of transfer across boundaries, for which we provide in New Clause 27. This is really to deal with circumstances in which local authorities refuse, because of their local education authority boundaries, to take rational decisions about allowing children to go to the nearest school. This is particularly important where local authorities indulge in strict zoning procedures, which I hope the Minister will discourage wherever he finds them. Not only do they stop transfers across boundaries even when these are sensible, but they stop transfers between zones within their own local education authority. I hope that the Minister will encourage the proper use of across-boundary transfers where this is a reasonable choice for the parents to make.
  I know of some of the difficulties from my constituency where the local authorities have been somewhat inflexible in exercising their right to give children the right of transfer across boundaries. I ask the Secretary of State to take particular note of this point. At a time of rapid change, when parents are extremely worried about changes in education, the authorities should make arrangements for transfers across boundaries a good deal more flexibly.
  The new clause dealing with the choice of schools is important. If children over the age of 15 want to transfer, not necessarily to a school but to an educational course outside a school, the parents would have that choice under our proposals. The clause justifies a change in courses when there are special courses as allowed by the Bill in dancing and music. This is particularly relevant to my constituency, which has on its borders the Yehudi Menuhin school of music. We also want to add schools with advanced courses in mathematics and languages and other special disciplines which cannot be spread evenly across the whole range of secondary education.
  In conclusion, there are good educational reasons for our proposals. The basic one is an attempt to get parents more deeply involved in the schooling of their children and into a closer relationship with the schools, giving all their parental authority to backing the schools'

  1385
  efforts. That is what the new clauses mean, and I hope that the Minister of State will take cognisance of the widespread demand by parents that they should be brought more closely into educational choice and the management of schools.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
  The problem that we face with these new clauses was encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). I do not dissent in any way from the objectives stated by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). We are at one in wishing to see parental involvement in schools. But the clauses would put the power not in the hands of parents but in the hands of the head teachers of schools that were over-subscribed.
  In Committee the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) reminded us of the danger of assessment by head teachers. I remember his saying that that system could be more dangerous than the 11-plus examination.
  1.0 a.m.
  The hon. Gentleman was right. The principle of selection in the case of oversubscribed schools is built into New Clause 4, and that is why I must ask the House to reject it. I assure the House that Section 76 of the 1944 Act remains unchallenged by the Bill, but we cannot accept the new clause.
  Mr. Walter Harrison(Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 253.

  Division No. 170

  AYES

  1.01 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Allaun, Frank

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Archer, Peter

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Freud, Clement

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cronin, John

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  George, Bruce

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ginsburg, David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Golding, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gould, Bryan

  Bates, Alf

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bean, R. E.

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bishop, E. S.

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Harper, Joseph

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Boardman, H

  Dempsey, James

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Doig, Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hatton, Frank

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hayman, Mrs Helena

  Bradley, Tom

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunn, James A.

  Hooley, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Horam, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Howell Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Eadie, Alex

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Buchan, Norman

  Edge, Geoff

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Huckfield, Les

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Campbell, Ian

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cant, R. B.

  Ennals, David

  Hughes, Roy (Nwport)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Hunter, Adam

  Carter, Ray

  Evans John (Newton)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Cartwright, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Janner, Greville

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  John, Brynmor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Forrester, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Judd, Frank

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Snape, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Newens, Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kelley, Richard

  Noble, Mike

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Kerr, Russell

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ogden, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Kinnock, Neil

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Lambie, David

  Orbach, Maurice

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  Lamborn, Harry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Lamond, James

  Ovenden, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Owen, Dr David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Padley, Walter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Park, George

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parry, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tierney, Sydney

  Litterick, Tom

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Tinn, James

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pendry, Tom

  Tomlinson, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Penhaligon, David

  Torney, Tom

  Luard, Evan

  Perry, Ernest

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Prescott, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  McElhone, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Radice, Giles

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Ward, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wotkins, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Watkinson, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weetch, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wellbeloved, James

  Madden, Max

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Magee, Bryan

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mahon, Simon

  Rooker, J. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Mallalieu. J. P. W.

  Roper, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Marquand, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Sandelson, Neville

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mendelson, John

  Selby, Harry

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Millan, Bruce

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Woodall, Alec

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Woof, Robert

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Molloy, William

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Moonman, Eric

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silverman, Julius

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Ted Graham

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Small, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdala)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Burden, F. A.

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Alison, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Elliott, Sir William

  Arnold, Tom

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Emery, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Channon, Paul

  Eyre, Reginald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Banks, Robert

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Farr, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Fell, Anthony

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Biffen, John

  Cockcroft, John

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Blaker, Peter

  Cope, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Body, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Corrie, John

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Costain, A. P.

  Fox, Marcus

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Critchley, Julian

  Fry, Peter

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Crouch, David

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Brittan, Leon

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Goodhart, Philip

  Buck, Antony

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Goodhew, Victor

  Budgen, Nick

  Durant, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Dykes, Hugh

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  1388

  1389

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gray, Hamish

  Marten, Neil

  Scott, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mates, Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grist, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Hall, Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shepherd, Colin

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Silvester, Fred

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Sims, Roger

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mills, Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Monro, Hector

  Spence, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hicks, Robert

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Sproat, Iain

  Holland, Philip

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Stainton, Keith

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Stanley, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mudd, David

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Neave, Airey

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hunt, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stokes, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Neubert, Michael

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Newton, Tony

  Tapsell, Peter

  James, David

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

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

  Nott, John

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Osborn, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Trotter, Neville

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  van Straubenzee, w. R.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Percival, Ian

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wakeham, John

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kitson, Sir Timorthy

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Raison, Timothy

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Knox, David

  Rathbone Tim

  Wall, Patrick

  Lane, David

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Lawson, Nigel

  Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Wells, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Loveridge, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Luce, Richard

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Younger, Hon George

  McCrindle, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  MacGregor, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 295.

  Division No. 171.]

  AYES

  [1.14 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Alison, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Channon, Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brittan, Leon

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Banks, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brotherton, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cockcroft, John

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Benyon, W.

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Cope, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Biffen, John

  Budgen, Nick

  Corrie, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Costain, A. P.

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Critchley, Julian

  Body, Richard

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Crouch, David

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kirk, Sir Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Dunlop, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lane, David

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lawson, Nigel

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Emery, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Ian

  Scott, Nicholas

  Farr, John

  Loveridge, John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fell, Anthony

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McCusker, H.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Macfarlane. Neil

  Shepherd, Colin

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sims, Roger

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mates, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigale)

  Mather, Carol

  Spence, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Maude, Angus

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mawby, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sproat, Iain

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stainton, Keith

  Goodhart, Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stanley, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Peter

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stokes, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Moate, Roger

  Stradling, Thomas J.

  Gray, Hamish

  Molyneaux, James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Grylls, Michael

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hall, Sir John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nelson, Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Normanton, Tom

  Wakeham, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nott, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Holland, Philip

  Osborn, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Walters, Dennis

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wells, John

  Hunt, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Hurd, Douglas

  Percival, Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  James, David

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Younger, Hon George

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Allaun, Frank

  Bates, Alf

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Anderson, Donald

  Bean, R, E.

  Boyden, Jamas (Bish Auck)

  Archer, Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Bradley, Tom

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Boardman, H.

  Buchanan, Richard

  1392

  1393

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Owen, Dr David

  Cant, R. B.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Padley, Walter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter, Ray

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Park, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Huckfield, Les

  Parker, John

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Parry, Robert

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Roy (Nwport)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hunter, Adam

  Penhaligon, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Perry, Ernest

  Colqsuhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Prescott, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Greville

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Radice, Giles

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechtord)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Judd, Frank

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kelley, Richard

  Rooker, J. W.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kerr, Russell

  Roper, John

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Selby, Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Doig, Peter

  Lever, Rt Hon Harold

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Dunn, James A.

  Litterick, Tom

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Silverman, Julius

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Small, William

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McElhone, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  English, Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ennals, David

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stoddart, David

  Evans John (Newton)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Ewing, Harry (Stirlina)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Strang, Gavin

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.

  Fernynough, Rt Hon E.

  Madden, Max

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Magee, Bryan

  Swain, Thomas

  Flannery, Martin

  Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Forrester, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tierney, Sydney

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Tinn, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Tomlinson, John

  Freud, Clement

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Millan, Bruce

  Urwin, T. W.

  George, Bruce

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Gould, Bryan

  Moonman, Eric

  Ward, Michael

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkins, David

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkinson, John

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Weetch, Ken

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moyle, Roland

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  White, James (Pollok)

  Harper, Joseph

  Newens, Stanley

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Noble, Mike

  Whitlock, William

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ogden, Eric

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Hatton, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  1394

  1395

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Woodall, Alec

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Ted Graham.

  Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Mulley: Of course, if that does not meet with the agreement of the Opposition, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the motion. This is an important Bill. I confess that I am disappointed at the slow progress that the House has made, but I think that it will be for general convenience if we adjourn now. As the Government are determined to get the Bill on to the statute book at the earliest possible date, we shall want to return to further consideration as soon as we can conveniently do so.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The decision whether to adjourn the debate is for the House, but the responsibility for proposing the adjournment is the Government's. The Opposition think that is a sensible decision for the Government to take, in view of the important business later today, the importance of this Bill, and the fact that some very important new clauses still have to be discussed.
  I want to make it quite plain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has been no communication between any usual or unusual channels. No deal has been made by anyone, and the Opposition reserve their full rights on this matter. We look forward to resuming the battle when the Government have recovered.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  TELEVISION MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  1.31 a.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: It is just after 1.30 a.m., and I am taken somewhat by surprise, since I had anticipated not having to rise until about
  1396
  11.30 this morning. However, despite the short notice, I propose to address the House on the very serious threat that now exists to the prospects of the television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. I want to talk about it particularly in relation to the threat of Japanese competition.
  The television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is not in a healthy state. The Japanese have recently accomplished a very substantial feat. They forced the closure of the Skelmersdale factory of Thorn Consumer Electronics at a cost of 1,400 jobs, £20 million a year on the balance of payments, and the serious weakening of the television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. They did it by maintaining prices for Japanese tubes without any increase at all throughout 1974 and 1975. In fact, between October 1974 and October 1975 the price of tubes from Japan actually fell.
  What happened was that the moment they knocked out one-half of all the tube production in the United Kingdom, their prices rose steadily. In March 1976 the Japanese increased their prices very substantially, and we in Britain will have to pay the piper for that.
  I mention those facts because the same thing is happening in relation to television sets. Having got the tubes under their belt, the Japanese are now moving in to knock out the British television manufacturing industry, using similar methods.
  The value of the yen has risen substantially in the last two years in relation to sterling. Consequently, it will take more and more pounds to buy a Japanese tube or a Japanese television set. But until the Japanese knocked out the Skelmersdale factory, the price of tubes did not rise. Up to the moment, no price rises have occurred in Japanese television sets, although they have now found it necessary to increase the price of tubes, because they are no longer worried about local competition. Why do they not increase the price of television sets?
  Japan has a 10 per cent. inflation rate, which should raise Japanese manufacturing costs. That should be another reason

  1397
  why Japanese television sets should cost more in the United Kingdom. However, by a remarkable feat, they do not cost more here, although the prices in Japan have been raised. The Japanese have increased the price of television sets in Japan but not in the United Kingdom and Western Europe. That is because they are pursuing the same policy with regard to television sets as they have pursued in relation to television tubes. They will wait until Thorn Consumer Electronics, which is making over half of our monochrome sets and one-third of our colour sets, is forced to close down production, or a substantial part of its production.
  The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government what they propose to do about this matter. The industry has been on to the Government. The Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—has said that the Government intend to see that the United Kingdom television manufacturing industry thrives, but so far nothing has happened. The Japanese had an arrangement, industry to industry, with United Kingdom manufacturers, that when business was bad in the United Kingdom, and when consumer demand was low, they would export to this country fewer sets, in order that our industry could remain viable, and that they would import more sets only when our consumer demand was booming. They have refused to renew that agreement since the end of 1975, because they have decided to move in for the kill on our television set manufacturing industry.
  The Government now have the full responsibility for negotiating with the Japanese on behalf of the industry. There was a move to prove that the Japanese have been guilty of dumping tubes, but the Japanese were very quick with their footwork and, at the same time, they took advantage of the curious phrasing of the remit in connection with dumping. The result was that nothing was established, although it is quite clear that the tubes were sold at a lower price than that at which they should have been sold. In other words, the Japanese are prepared to sell goods at an uneconomic price for a time in order to achieve their long-range economic objectives. It is quite clear, therefore, that what we are seeing here are unethical business practices, with the long-range objective of
  1398
  destroying sectors of Western European industry.
  I want to make it very clear that the television manufacturers in Britain are not objecting to fair competition. The European competition they regard as fair. If costs rise in Europe, the price of European television sets rises too, because their manufacture costs more, and therefore more has to be paid by Britain in buying a European article, just as British manufacturers, when their costs rise with inflation, have to increase their prices. However, the Japanese, until they have knocked out an industry, keep their prices steady.
  If trading is fair, it is impossible to understand how it is that the Japanese have had to raise the price of tubes at this late date, but after a year or two still do not have to raise the price of colour television sets.
  Basically, therefore, the ball is in the British Government's court. They must honour their pledge to see that we have a thriving industry. If the Japanese knock out this section of industry, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have lost 1,400 at Skelmersdale. In Bradford we have Thorn Consumer Electronics, which was, and perhaps still is, the largest colour television factory in Europe. The number of workers there has dropped dramatically, unfortunately, but there are still between 2,000 and 3,000 people employed there. If the Government do not act, in the long term—perhaps even in the medium term—we shall see a loss of employment in Bradford.
  I do not want to be alarmist, but in a business sense we are dealing with ruthless people, when we are dealing with the Japanese. I should also include mention of areas into which the Japanese have expanded for the purpose of manufacture, because now an enormous number of television sets are coming from Singapore and Taiwan. The Japanese have a finger in those pies. They are increasing their export to Britain of portable monochrome television sets at a fantastic rate. It is likely that they will take 50 per cent. of the market this year.
  Last year it was suggested to the Japanese that they restrict their exports of sets to this country to 175,000. They exported 209,000 sets. At the moment, we are importing Japanese sets, taking the figures for February and March, at an

  1399
  annual rate of about 300,000. When one adds the other Eastern countries we can expect imports of television sets into Britain to number about 500,000 this year. That will not do, unless competition is fair. Faced with subtle pricing policies which are not based on honest commercial criteria the British industry will go to the wall. If it goes to the wall there will be a loss of jobs, which I shall find unacceptable. This is a Labour Government and I am a Labour MP, but if the factory in Bradford closes the Government will have a lot of trouble on their hands from Labour MPs.
  Tonight we are giving advance warning. A lot more will be heard about the colour television industry, because it is the largest employer of labour in Bradford and we are not prepared to see it close for want of action. We simply cannot have that, and the balance of payments situation in this country cannot stand it. We have already been seriously weakened by the loss of the television tube industry-50 per cent, of that has gone—and we will not allow the colour television and monochrome television industries to go without a fight. Workers in Gosport now have their jobs threatened by the avalanche of Japanese sets coming into this country.
  These are some of the matters that I would like the Minister to consider tonight. What we want is a stiffening of British attitudes in negotiations with the Japanese. If they will not conform to proper and reasonable standards by limiting their exports to us or ensuring that their pricing policies relate to the cost of manufacture of the set, the British Government must take serious action. That is the message that I bring to the Minister tonight and I hope he will give some answers to it.
  1.43 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this subject. I am fully appreciative of the importance attached to it in his part of the country. I should emphasise—and my hon. and learned Friend has himself intimated—that public interest and public involvement in this industry is not confined to any one part of the country. There are 20,000 employees and, in addition, there are substantial
  1400
  numbers in supporting component industries.
  As has been suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, the most important aspect of the industry is the colour TV set. Last year, which was a bad year for the industry, over 1,500,000 United Kingdom colour television sets were built, with an ex-works value of £260 million. In addition, 500,000 monochrome sets were built, with a value of £25 million. However, the industry has been going through a difficult period.
  One must see this problem in a slightly longer-term perspective and not just in relation to the events of the last 12 months. One must take into account the strains imposed on the industry by the irresponsible activities of the Conservative Chancellor, Mr. Barber, when he unexpectedly removed all credit controls in 1971, unleashing a demand that the domestic industry was not capable of meeting. Consumer demand rose from 400,000 in 1970 to 2·6 million in 1973. Inevitably, imports were drawn in, the industry expanded, and committed capital to meet this extra demand, and domestic output rose from 500,000 colour sets in 1970 to 2 million in 1973. That was a remarkable expansion.
  But then, as irresponsibly as the credit controls were removed in 1971, they were stringently reapplied in December 1973. Firms had made their financial commitments and deployed their resources, and consumer demand fell sharply as a result of the Conservative Chancellor's decision. The figure for United Kingdom production slipped to just under 2 million.
  Then the recession deepened, in part as an inevitable reflection of the worldwide situation. One must accept that at that stage the VAT rate of 25 per cent. was not exactly helpful to the industry's prospects. Output fell eventually to 1·6 million. By the end of last year the United Kingdom colour set manufacturers were working to as little as 50 per cent. of capacity.
  Naturally the Government treat this situation as serious and want to do what they can to help. In December, the credit controls were eased and in April the VAT rate was halved to 12½ per cent. We believe that the benefits of these decisions will be felt more fully as the upturn is reflected in consumer demand

  1401
  generally and that we have therefore eased the trading circumstances for the television manufacturers.
  Nevertheless, it would be ridiculous to be complacent or to suggest that that in any way resolves the immediate problem, or that we shall return to something like the boom year of 1973. I see no prospect of that. The demand for colour sets over 1976 as a whole may still show little change over the figures for 1975.
  Despite the substantial and commendable increase in exports of colour television sets—in other words, finding alternative markets—from 10,000 in 1971 to 200,000 last year, I regret to say that the under-loading in the set and component factories has continued and that individual firms will need to consider their production plans carefully in the light of their assessment of the market trends.
  The critical point raised by my hon. and learned Friend—I fully understand his concern—was the problem of import competition, particularly from Japan. In colour television sets, which are the most important part of the industry, accounting for 90 per cent. of output and the bulk of employment, import penetration of the United Kingdom market has actually fallen, from 25 per cent. in 1973 to 20 per cent. in 1974, then to 16·5 per cent. in 1975, and the first four months of this year shows an annual rate of only 13 per cent. That rate is half that which applied in 1973.
  But the largest single source of colour television imports is Japan, and its share of our market has remained constant at about 10 per cent. throughout this period. At the end of 1975, the Japanese Government discontinued its statutory controls on the export of colour sets to the United Kingdom, but there has been no subsequent increase in the Japanese share of our market. It still stands at 10 per cent. for the first four months of this year, but that in no way leads us to be complacent. We are aware of the apprehensions of the industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the need for continuity of restraint is well understood by the Japanese Government and ourselves.
  My hon. and learned Friend will recollect that the Department of Trade has
  1402
  set up a surveillance licensing system to monitor developments and to give early warning. We hope that that system will enable us to respond rapidly to any marked and important change.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: My hon. Friend has not yet dealt with monochrome television sets. There has been a tremendous jump this year in monochrome set imports, and it looks as if Japan and other Far Eastern countries will take not 10 per cent., but over half of the production of monochrome sets.
  Mr. Williams: I am trying to isolate the problems, so that we see them in perspective. If my hon. and learned Friend will excuse me from replying immediately, I shall come to those points.
  I know that the United Kingdom industry is concerned that the average landed price of Japanese colour sets has so far failed to show the increase that might have been expected as a result of rising raw material costs and fluctuating exchange rates. The interesting feature is that, despite this, the Japanese have not expanded their market share of colour television sets in this country, as might have been expected were their objectives those described by my hon. and learned Friend. The ability of the Japanese—and this applies across the board—to maintain or reduce their prices does not necessarily indicate unfair trading practices. We should have to take into account our international trading colleagues were we to take the course of action advocated by my hon. and learned Friend. The ability to maintain or reduce prices might reflect higher productivity, or greater willingness to absorb costs or accept reduced margins.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Are not the only reasons why our colour television industry has not been smashed up the PAL licensing system—which denies the Japanese the right to send to Britain colour sets with screens bigger than 20in.—and the agreement that has just expired and will not be renewed, for the voluntary limitation of exports to Britain of colour television sets? Without those two safeguards, our colour television industry would already be in ruins.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. and learned Friend must bear in mind that the end of the agreement came at the time of the decision on credit controls, and we

  1403
  might have expected repercussions in terms of the market share. We have subsequently had the Chancellor's Budget decisions. If the surveillance system showed a marked change in the circumstances, we should want to look at that more closely.
  We must not overlook the onus that rests on the industry to establish its case. If there is reason to think that dumping is occurring—the general criterion is that the price charged in the United Kingdom is lower than the price charged in the exporting country's domestic market—the Department of Trade is always ready to consider anti-dumping action of the type available to us, but before taking such action the Department requires the application for action to show evidence of domestic prices in the exporting country and evidence of the extent to which the United Kingdom industry is being injured or threatened.
  My hon. and learned Friend said that he would not stand by and see jobs lost because of lack of action, and it is very much to his credit. That is the view of the Government, as well. But if the United Kingdom television industry wishes to press a case for anti-dumping action, it should proceed accordingly and follow the guidance that I have given on the action to be taken, although, if it is to do that it would be sensible for it first to discuss the position with my officials.
  I have explained the position about colour television sets. The situation is rather different in respect of table monochrome sets. There, the market has fallen, and imports present no problem. My hon. and learned Friend is mainly concerned about portable sets. Imports from Japan, Singapore and Taiwan are well entrenched—slightly more so than he suggested. The market for portable models has risen markedly in this country, from 300,000 in 1972 to over 700,000 last year. Here, we come across a somewhat different pattern of trends in terms of market penetration. Having fallen from 71 per cent. of the market in 1972 to 62 per cent. in 1973 and 43 per cent. in 1974, the share of the market held by imports rose again in 1975 to 57 per cent., and has reached 67 per cent. in the first four months of this year. In numbers, imports of portable monochrome sets almost doubled in the last
  1404
  four months, compared with the same period last year.
  Therefore, I must repeat what I have said, We fully understand the concern of the industry about imports into the radio and hi-fi markets and my hon. Friends' concern about the Thorn factory in Skelmersdale. We understand that they want action against imports from the Far East. But I reiterate that the Government have made it clear that they are willing to consider selective import controls if it can be shown that the survival of a British industry is threatened.
  But the industry must bring forward relevant evidence and information. Our international obligations require that such controls could in any case only be temporary. A number of factors have to be taken into account, including the risk of retaliation in the sale of our own products and the long-term prospects of the industry concerned.
  I urge my hon. and learned Friend, and the industry, if they feel that the evidence is as overwhelming as he has suggested and that it would be practicable to bring forward the data to demonstrate that there has been dumping, to make that information available to the Department at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be very ready to investigate such evidence urgently.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: What we want is a tough negotiating position by the Government to persuade the Japanese to bring in the sort of arrangements, voluntarily to restrict their exports to this country, which we had until last December. We do not need to prove dumping only.
  Mr. Williams: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government will be making the necessary representations to the Japanese Government in the light of the figures that have become available, but in terms of the drastic solution that he seeks—namely, unilaterally to curb imports—it would be necessary for an appropriate case to be made by the industry. If he wishes to discuss this with me further in the Department, I shall be happy to have such discussion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TRADE UNION CONFERENCES
  TRADE UNION CONFERENCES
  CARMARTHEN
  CARMARTHEN
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (PRESS ARTICLE)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (PRESS ARTICLE)
  NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  CBI
  CBI
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  USSR
  USSR
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  ISLE OF WIGHT
  FRANCE
  FRANCE
  LEYLAND
  LEYLAND
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS
  ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS
  LAW OF THE SEA
  LAW OF THE SEA
  BUILDING CONTRACTORS
  BUILDING CONTRACTORS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Official Car Service
  Official Car Service
  Rhubarb Plant Variety Rights Advisory Panel
  Rhubarb Plant Variety Rights Advisory Panel
  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal Panel
  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal Panel
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  European Community Directives
  European Community Directives
  Animals (Illegal Import)
  Animals (Illegal Import)
  Sugar Refining (Scotland)
  Sugar Refining (Scotland)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Overseas Air Travel
  Overseas Air Travel
DEFENCE
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve
  Tonga
  Tonga
  Reservists
  Reservists
  Rosyth Naval Base
  Rosyth Naval Base
WALES
  European Community Grants
  European Community Grants
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Parking Signs
  Parking Signs
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
SCOTLAND
  Public Inquiries (Reporters' Fees)
  Public Inquiries (Reporters' Fees)
  Children (Imprisonment)
  Children (Imprisonment)
  Children (Drugs and Drunkenness)
  Children (Drugs and Drunkenness)
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  Mental Hospital Patients
  Mental Hospital Patients
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Services
  Hospital Services
  Government Departments
  Government Departments
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Police Staff Associations
  Police Staff Associations
  Plastic Materials
  Plastic Materials
ENVIRONMENT
  Endangered Species (International Convention)
  Endangered Species (International Convention)
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Rigs
  Economic Planning Councils (Minutes)
  Economic Planning Councils (Minutes)
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Building Contractors
  Building Contractors
  Water Charges (Accounting Procedure)
  Water Charges (Accounting Procedure)
  Official Car Cervice
  Official Car Cervice
ENERGY
  Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975
  Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Scottish Resources
  Scottish Resources
  Nuclear Fuel (Storage)
  Nuclear Fuel (Storage)
  Nuclear Materials (Criminal Use)
  Nuclear Materials (Criminal Use)
  Plutonium Imports
  Plutonium Imports
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
INDUSTRY
  Aircraft Industry (Government Aid)
  Aircraft Industry (Government Aid)
  Merseyside (European Regional Development Fund Grants)
  Merseyside (European Regional Development Fund Grants)
  Hackney
  Hackney
  Furniture Development Council
  Furniture Development Council
TRADE
  South African Workers (Wages and Conditions)
  South African Workers (Wages and Conditions)
  North Sea Projects (Aid)
  North Sea Projects (Aid)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Metrication Board
  Metrication Board
  Consumer Credit Agreements
  Consumer Credit Agreements
  Wine (Carafe Sales)
  Wine (Carafe Sales)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Educational Planning
  Educational Planning
  Education Vouchers
  Education Vouchers
  Youth Service (Essay Competition)
  Youth Service (Essay Competition)
  Sir William Tyndale School, Islington
  Sir William Tyndale School, Islington
  CSE Examinations (School Leavers)
  CSE Examinations (School Leavers)
  Colleges of Further Education
  Colleges of Further Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  Teachers' General Council
  Teachers' General Council
  Teachers (Employment)
  Teachers (Employment)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Overseas Students (Review)
  Overseas Students (Review)
  Reading Ability
  Reading Ability
  Libraries
  Libraries
EMPLOYMENT
  Thread-Making Industry (Redundancies)
  Thread-Making Industry (Redundancies)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Schools (Class Size)
  Schools (Class Size)
  Training (Immigrants)
  Training (Immigrants)
  Cammell Laird Training School (Vacancies)
  Cammell Laird Training School (Vacancies)
  Steel Industry (Redundancies)
  Steel Industry (Redundancies)
  Official Car Service
  Official Car Service
  Unfair Dismissal Complaints
  Unfair Dismissal Complaints
  Bournemouth
  Bournemouth
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Shoreditch and Hackney
  Shoreditch and Hackney
  Job Creation and Training Funds
  Job Creation and Training Funds
  Branch IE
  Branch IE
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Disabled Persons (Quota)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy (Wales)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy (Wales)
  Earnings (Manufacturing Industry)
  Earnings (Manufacturing Industry)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Conferences in London
  Conferences in London
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Israel (Detained British Subjects)
  Israel (Detained British Subjects)
  Public Bodies (Costs)
  Public Bodies (Costs)
  Diplomatic Staff
  Diplomatic Staff
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Departmental Staff (Cars)
  Dollar Premiums
  Dollar Premiums
  Official Car Service
  Official Car Service
  Concessionary Air Fares
  Concessionary Air Fares
  Collectors of Taxes
  Collectors of Taxes
  Exchange Control
  Exchange Control
  Building Contractors
  Building Contractors
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Interest (Artificial Payments)
  Interest (Artificial Payments)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Public Sector Borrowing (Foreign Currencies)
  Marriages
  Marriages
  Child Tax Allowance
  Child Tax Allowance
SOCIAL SERVICES
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Vaccine-damaged Children
  Swine Influenza (Vaccine)
  Swine Influenza (Vaccine)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Clinical Research
  Clinical Research
  Medical Experimentation
  Medical Experimentation
  Disabled Persons (Essex)
  Disabled Persons (Essex)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit)
  Psychiatrists (Dyfed)
  Psychiatrists (Dyfed)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD) CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

ITALY: COMMUNISTS AND THE GENERAL ELECTION
Lord MILFORD: 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 can throw more light on the allegations published in our national Press on the existence of a Foreign Office document warning Italy of the consequences if the Communists go into the Government after the general election.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there is no such document.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There really is absolutely none at all? I am very pleased to know that.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, have the Government considered the implications to the MRCA programme if the Italian Government are taken over by the Communists at the forthcoming election?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are always considering the implications of all sorts of things, but this is hardly the time or the occasion to engage in a detailed answer to a detailed question of that kind.

CONCORDE: UK—AUSTRALIA FLIGHTS
2.37 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
468
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now make a senior Cabinet Minister responsible for negotiating a supersonic Concorde route across India so that United Kingdom—Australian flights can be started.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, these negotiations are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and he is working to secure an appropriate route to Melbourne.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, if the Secretary of State for Trade is too busy, may I ask whether the Government would consider putting in charge somebody who is well known in India and who is deeply respected there, because these negotiations really should be pressed on with? They are of supreme importance to the future of our civil aviation industry and to Concorde as well. Will the noble Lord consider this matter with an open mind because we on this side of the House are as anxious as he is to get a final agreement so that we can open the Concorde route to Australia?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are always prepared to consider anything which will aid the negotiations with the Indian Government over this difficult question. However busy the Secretary of State for Trade may be, I think I can assure the noble Lord that he is taking a close interest in this matter: and the then Secretary of State for Trade, when he was in India recently, took the opportunity to have discussions with the relevant Ministers in the Indian Government about it.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this Question is immensely topical? Is he aware that in the days when I was trying to sell Comets to Australia and India we did not get the backing we needed? Is he aware that Concorde is not getting the full backing that it needs to get this route to the Antipodes? Will he please do something about it?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not aware that Concorde is not getting the backing it needs and I do not think there

469
is any evidence to support the noble Lord's statement in that respect.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, owing to the very high standards of excellence of all the members of the Cabinet, it would be very difficult to discriminate and choose such a Minister?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the Government remind the Indians that we are a major contributor to the aid provided to that sub-continent and that we shall hardly be able to continue that aid if the Concorde project among others is not allowed to proceed?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, have any complaints been received either from the Mediterranean or Middle East countries as a result of the supersonic flying to Bahrein? Do the Government still have an open mind, as they said previously they had, about supersonic flying over this country in the more thinly populated areas if the threats of serious trouble from booms continue to diminish, as they currently are diminishing?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that we have not received any official complaints from the countries where there are supersonic overflights on the route to Bahrein: namely, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. As the noble Lord pointed out, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade has said that while as yet there have been no requests to Her Majesty's Government for a supersonic corridor over this country, certainly we should consider any requests were any to be made to us.

B.A.C. FAIRFORD: INDUSTRIAL SITUATION
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 are aware that there are industrial problems at B.A.C. Fairford, which may well delay the delivering of Concorde 208 to British Airways.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Government are aware of the industrial situation at Fairford.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him to inform us what action is being taken about it? Further, is he aware that it is the lack of policy in the aerospace industry that has forced this decision on BAC's workers, thereby making BAC the scapegoat? Would he consider sending a senior Minister, or even the chairman designate of British Aerospace, to Fairford to sort it out personally?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not sure that it lies in my hands to send senior Ministers, or the chairman designate of British Aerospace, anywhere, let alone to Fairford, at the moment. I certainly would not accept that the present problems of Fairford have anything to do with the policy or lack of policy on the aerospace industry itself. When we had a lengthy debate on this subject in this House, the noble Lord will recall that it was stated that Fairford was being closed for sound reasons by the British Aircraft Corporation. I understand that it is that impending closure and loss of jobs which very understandably has led to some problems at Fairford at the moment.

IMMIGRATION VOUCHERS
Lord BARNBY: 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 will take steps to correct the misleading impression that one immigration voucher represents one immigrant whereas it may represent as many as four.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, there is no reason for any such impression to be current. We have often made clear, both in Parliament and elsewhere, that a special voucher covers the holder plus his family, if he has one.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether it is to be understood that the voucher carries permission for the entry of only four bodies? Or can it, as is widely believed and expressed in the Press, be for several people or, at any rate, for more than four people? May I also ask the noble Lord to indicate what measures have been taken to tighten up the granting of vouchers and passports overseas? In cases where it is within the knowledge of the police that individuals have come in illegally or have overstayed their permits, may I ask whether they are subject to rigorous deportation?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, in answer to the last point made by the noble Lord, the police devote a very substantial quantity of resources to dealing with illegal immigration. So far as the first two points are concerned, special vouchers are issued to heads of households, who may bring their dependants in with them. If a person has no family, the voucher may be for one person, but in other cases it will be for far more than one person. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's Question is concerned—that is, his request to the Government to tighten up so far as vouchers arc concerned—I must make it absolutely clear that the present Government accept, as did their predecessor, that they have a clear responsibility with regard to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. The Government have no intention of welshing on that commitment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the general view was that a voucher meant one person? His present statement that one voucher can mean five, six or seven immigrants will add to the concern which people are feeling. Is the noble Lord aware that time is running out and that the real situation ought to he made quite clear and the arrangements for allowing immigrants to come in put into language that everyone can understand, so as to remove all ambiguity?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe that the real position has been clear for a considerable period of time. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear on 24th May
472
this year the position so far as voucher holders were concerned. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did it on 17th May this year. I did it in this House on 10th February last year and my right honourable friend did it again on 6th February last year. With great respect to the noble Lord, I therefore suggest that the position has been wholly clear for a considerable period of time.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, where a man's religion allows him to have up to four wives, all of whom have children, they would all he covered by one voucher?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I have indicated, the position has not changed in any way from the practice of the previous Government, so far as I am aware. So far as United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa are concerned, we accept a special responsibility. My right honourable friend's predecessor, with great political courage, stood by that responsibility in the face of very substantial pressure. He made himself unpopular and it was a great credit to him that he did not retreat in the face of that pressure. I repeat that the present Government have no intention of changing the arrangements so far as East African passport holders are concerned.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether we are to recognise polygamy in this country indefinitely?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that takes the matter somewhat wider than the precise Question put down on the Order Paper. The arrangements which my noble friend referred to have been operating for some time. There are certainly significant difficulties which arise when people of different religions want to enter this country. There is a real problem here, and I do not try to pretend that there is not.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord make clear—and I appreciate what he said about his predecessor under the Conservative Government—what is the

473
position of polygamous wives? Clearly, if they are passport holders on their own, they are passport holders in their own right; but what is the position of polygamous wives as polygamous wives? That is what we want to know.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will gladly look into the matter. I suspect that it is exactly as it was when the noble and learned Lord was a member of a Cabinet which I believe to have pursued precisely the same policy. Nevertheless, he has raised a question and I will gladly look into it.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if I may be permitted to ask a supplementary, I should like to know whether it is possible for a person who brings in a polygamous wife whom he took in his own country to take a further polygamous wife in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I feel that caution should be the order of the day at this stage. I shall gladly look into the point.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is not this covered by the case of
"… the Old Person of Lyme
" Who married three wives at a time "?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords: though I appreciate the fullness of the Minister's reply to my supplementary, since he referred to the administration for the granting of vouchers, may I ask whether it would not be worth considering transferring the consideration of sponsors for further immigration from overseas to this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I feel that I have—as I hope he will agree when he studies Hansard tomorrow—made the position of the Government quite clear.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many coloured people—and one has to use that word advisedly—will be eligible to enter this country as dependants of present voucher holders, as dependants of people who have come in already, and as United
474
Kingdom passport holders? Is the noble Lord not aware that, if the figure were known, we could plan for it?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough to put down a Question, I shall do my best to answer it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is looking into this Question, will he further consider whether a polyandrous wife can bring several husbands to this country with her?

UNCTAD IV
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Oram will repeat a Statement on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
Report received.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert (" after consultation with local authorities and such other bodies as appear to him to have an interest.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 might with advantage be considered together. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage we had tabled a larger Amendment with the same intention. The intention of the Amendment relates in this instance to occasions when the Secretary of State intends to extend the area of responsibility of the Board. The parallel Amendment, No. 2, has a like effect on occasions when the Secretary of State intends to diminish the area of responsibility. In each case we have thought it fit that he should be required to consult the local authorities affected by the acquisition of greater amounts of land or the reduction of it. This suggestion was quite well received across the Chamber at the Committee stage. We have dropped requirements which we had earlier that such changes should he brought about using the Affirmative Resolution procedure for Statutory Instruments in the two Houses of Parliament, in the light of the objections raised to that procedure by the Government and in the hope that this gesture will secure their concurrence.
I should like to emphasise one point which appeared to be troubling some noble Lords on the other side at the Committee stage; namely, that the requirement that a particular body should he consulted does not exclude the possibility of consulting other bodies. A number of noble Lords objected to the Committee stage Amendment on the grounds that it necessarily narrowed the area of consultation; on the contrary, it expands the area of necessary consultation. I do not think that it would be profitable to argue this case in extenso at this stage, because we covered the ground with considerable thoroughness at the Committee stage. The arguments are simple and they are not really contentious.
The Bill is presented to us as a gesture in the direction of democracy; some of us see it as an interposition of bureaucracy between Government and the governed. One way of allaying this fear, which exists not only in this House but also among those who will live under the régime when it is introduced, is to make it clear that decisions of an order of magnitude of this kind, which will entirely alter the administration of a part of Wales from what it now is, cannot be carried out without
476
adequate consultation of those nearest to the individual people, usually described as the " grass roots ". This is in the tradition of this House in protecting the rights of the individual and the principle of democracy, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware of the very great efforts made by my noble friend Lord Simon in the earlier stages of this Bill and we on these Benches owe him a great debt of gratitude for his efforts in that respect. He has asked me to say that he is very sorry that he is unable to be present today and he has left me a document which I propose to refer to as my brief this afternoon in order to make some short interventions. I have nothing to add in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in support of them. My noble friend spoke in support of similar Amendments at other stages of the Bill, and we on these Benches support the Amendments as put forward.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I shall be as commendably brief as the two noble Lords who have spoken, by indicating that the Government are fully sympathetic to what is proposed in these Amendments, but as they stand they present difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton said, their effect is to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult county councils, district councils, community councils
" and such other bodies as appear to him to have an interest "
before either extending or diminishing the Board's area of responsibility. That arises from the definition of local authorities in Clause 32(1) of the Bill. It may be that it was never the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that that degree of statutory duty of consultation should be extended over all those tiers of local authority responsibility. The message which really emerged from the Committee stage of the Bill was for more action and fewer words—less talk and more doing. If we multiply the extent of statutory duties imposed, then we may not get the necessary action.
However, I am very willing to look at this matter in the light of my acceptance of the view that certainly a duty of

477
consultation arises here, and I can give the assurance that the Secretary of State intends such consultation. But perhaps the noble Lord would be content if the statutory duty were confined to the county councils and the district councils concerned, but did not extend to the other councils.
Another difficulty in the Amendment as it stands is that it is not clear from its reference to " local authorities " whether consultation should be confined to local authorities responsible for the actual or proposed area of the Board or whether it should cover all the local authorities of Wales. I hardly imagine that the latter was intended, but this is a matter which needs clarification. I certainly undertake to look again at what is proposed, so that what is desired by both noble Lords who have spoken can reasonably be met.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he said. Had he said less there would have been a doubt in our minds in that on the one hand he said that the Government intend that these consultations will take place, while on the other hand, a few sentences later, he will have been seen to have said that one must not have too many statutory duties because there will not be time to discharge them. Plainly if it is intended that they should be discharged, that argument must fall, and I am pleased to hear that it is the Government's intention that they shall be discharged. I see the difficulties which the noble and learned Lord has raised at least in relation to the number of local authorities which have to be consulted. This is a matter of drafting. If, as I understand him—and he will correct me if I am wrong—it is his intention to bring in at the Third Reading an Amendment on these lines but with the limitations he has suggested, then there would be no purpose in proceeding further with this Amendment. If the noble and learned Lord would like to stand up, metaphorically speaking, before I sit down, I think it would be in order for him to make an observation on that point.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that at Third Reading I can achieve the purpose the noble Lord mentions.
478
I use the words, " I hope ". I do not think there will be any real difficulty but I cannot, in this changing world, give an absolute guarantee.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am sure the emptiness of the Officials' Box also has some bearing on the noble and learned Lord's hesitancy, but I accept his good intentions. If we may leave it that this matter is open until Third Reading, in the expectation of a happy compromise, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 also refers back to something we have discussed at an earlier stage, and has been tabled as a means of avoiding giving the Secretary of State excessive powers which could, in unforeseen circumstances, be used ill-advisedly. I am happy to note the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make sure that proper advice is sought in the procedures referred to in this subsection, and that their intentions are validated by Amendment No. 15, which is to Schedule 1. In moving this Amendment, I think it would be proper if I were to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would refer to Amendment No. 15, because I suspect that the operations of that Amendment might go a long way to meet our intentions in the Amendment now under discussion. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment would be to delete from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to give the Board directions. Following the discussions which took place in Committee, the Government propose to adopt the suggestion that was made there that the Secretary of State should consult the Board, rather than the chairman, before making directions. I think that that really was the message that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, sought to put across, and, with his usual persuasiveness, he succeeded in doing so. It is therefore our intention to give effect to that proposal in Amendment No. 15. If that satisfies the noble Lord, then perhaps I need not elaborate on the need

479
to give the Secretary of State power to give directions to the Board.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is common practice for Secretaries of State to be able to give directions to Boards under these circumstances, and, as the noble and learned Lord has clearly put it, it was our intention to see that these were not given without consultation with the Board as a whole. The Bill as it stood would have enabled the Secretary of State to find it impossible to get in touch with the chairman or vice-chairman of the Board, and to have given directions without any consultation at all. We are happy to see this possibility removed; and, in the light of that assurance, and welcoming in advance the advent of Amendment No. 15, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [General powers of the Board]:
3.4 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may he to the convenience of the House if we were to consider Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 together. They strike the Bill in Clause 3, and the intention in leaving out paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Clause 3 is to remove an all-embracing power to undertake activities for all sorts of purposes given to the Board under the Bill. The two Amendments are a return to the attempt we made at Committee stage to reassure those who see in this Bill as it stands a threat that the Board will see fit to embark upon commercial or entrepreneurial activities in which it will stand at an immense and undesirable advantage vis-à-vis the private sector, which is made up, as noble Lords will recall from exchanges at the Committee stage, largely of very small units of business which feel themselves, rightly, exposed to the chill winds of unfair competition.
At Committee stage we put forward Amendments with a similar purpose, and we were told, first, that there was no intention to use these powers competitively. To that I now rejoin: Why, in that case, give the opportunity for the Board so to do at a future date? You
480
do not, after all, put a catapult into a small boy's Christmas stocking simply because he says he will not use it. Particularly do you not do so if you have a lot of greenhouses at home and have heard him muttering about how he likes breaking windows. The earlier intentions of the Bill on the West Midlands Metropolitan Area will, I think, be taken as an indication that someone in authority does like the idea of breaking windows in the form of Government bodies undertaking competitive enterprises.
The Government were then, to follow our analogy, actually stretching the elastic in the direction of the conservatory. The deletion of paragraph (g) would, on its own, remove this temptation by removing the possibility of yielding to it. At the Committee stage, however, it was made clear that there were a number of activities upon which the Board should properly embark, which the deletion of paragraph (g) would prohibit them from executing if it stood as an Amendment on its own. This I accept, though I fancy that for a number of these activities there are other agencies capable of acting in their place. However, be that as it may, we have the second Amendment linked to cover this eventuality.
It was secondly represented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that powers similar to those in question are granted under the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act in Section 6. The noble Lord twice quoted from the section the phrase:
…carry on or set up…any business…which…will contribute to the economic or social development of the Highlands and islands ",
and he held it up for our approval. Having had this section held up to us as an example to follow we have, under his leadership, followed it. Here it is, in the Amendment, with the area of the Welsh Board substituted for the Highlands and Islands Board. The advantages that I see in following the precept urged upon us by the noble Lord at Committee stage are, first, that unlike the present drafting of the Bill it requires the Board to secure the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury whenever it intends to go into business on its own account, or on anyone else's; and, secondly, that the acquisition of a business or undertaking must be specifically by agreement. These are two provisions not at present in the Bill.

481
Thirdly, as the Government have already expressed their approval of the terms of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act in this respect, which we have here exactly reproduced, we feel that for once we are asking them to pursue a course of action which they favour and in which we are in agreement with them. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.9 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be certainly to deny the Board the power to undertake a business. That would be a serious derogation from the powers of the Board as set out in this Bill. I am quite sure that that would not be received with enthusiasm, or indeed tolerance, in the area in Wales which this Bill is aimed to assist. The Amendment related to it is in fact different in certain important respects from the provision in the Bill. The noble Lord, with his usual clarity, has indicated at least some of them. First of all, the new clause would make it clear that the Board could undertake businesses only with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. On that, I would say that the Board is already required, under the terms of Clause 2(1) (b), to submit to the Secretary of State for Wales, for his approval, proposals, whether of a general or of a specific character, for the economic and social development of the area. Moreover, the Secretary of State under the provisions of Clause 10(1),
" may pay to the Board such sums in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Board for the purpose of meeting its obligations or discharging its functions as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
The point about the involvement of the Secretary of State and the Treasury in any such action arising from the existing provisions is firmly met in the Bill as it stands.
As to the second difference which the new clause puts up, acquisition by agreement, I think it was indicated at Committee stage that the Board was likely to exercise the power where it is unable to interest developers or businesses in a proposition which it considers of advantage or in the interests of the area, and to exercise such a power only where it is perfectly clear that normal entrepreneurship is unable or unwilling to discharge such a function or
482
render such a service: and it will exercise this power simply because of the absence of interest from the private sector and it will exercise this power on its own behalf. It is not the intention of the Board to acquire existing businesses in order to carry on the particular business.. This has been said and repeated; and I repeat it now. I do not know whether the noble Lord will wish me to deal with the point about carrying on business through an agent—I think that he is well advised of the argument on that one—or to retread the argument about the promotion of the economic and social development of the area.
The noble Lord raised the point about the phrasing or the wording of the powers given to the Highland and Islands Board and, in a nifty piece of verbal footwork, he attempted to father on to me the precise suggestion that he was hoping to get past this Front Bench in the House. I must confess to great admiration for his techniques but I regret that I cannot succumb to them.
Briefly the position is this. We are here engaged in a non-partisan effort to provide specifically for a specific problem. There are Members of this House who have long practical experience of the peculiar problems thrown up by this very vast rural area which has been dogged by unusually recalcitrant difficulties of an economic and, indeed, geographical character. The Welsh Agency will tackle the all too familiar problems of industrial Wales, South Wales and North West Wales, the quarrying areas; but we have in Wales what we are used broadly to describing as the area of Powys, the ancient kingdom of Powys, an area which for many centuries has been calling out for a specific solution. We think that in a bipartisan way, since about the middle 1960s, we have found the right answers. Indeed, the gradual revival of the economy of the area, certainly around Newtown itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will bear out, owes much to the techniques that we have used since 1965.
We consider this Bill, with the provisions that it makes and in particular the provisions enabling the Board to undertake business reasonably and within the parameters that I have tried to describe, to be essential for this purpose. No one

483
in the area, whether among the local authorities or individuals of corporate bodies, has come to us and asked for a change in the wording of this provision. I would ask the noble Lord on reflection not to press this Amendment or the new clause to which it is aliened, on the assurance once more that this power is no new power and it will be exercised by the Board in firm consultation with, and under the veto of, the Secretary of State and the Treasury on the lines that I have once more tried to indicate.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down —and I say this in order to preserve the procedures—I must say that I am unhappy about his reply. His words and his expressions arc absolutely magnificent. They carry people away; and I am quite sure that his undertakings are meant. But many noble and learned Lords in this House have always told your Lordships that the intention of what is going to happen, the intention of what is in the Bill, does not matter in the slightest. We must read the words and see what they say. Here it says:
" to carry on any undertaking or business".
To my mind that means exactly what it says: at any time in the future any undertaking or business can be carried on. I would support my noble friends strongly on this matter.
3.16 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister, as one would expect, spoke sympathetically of the problems of the area in Wales that both he and I know so well and of the attempts being made to improve conditions there. But with great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, I did not quite appreciate some of the remarks he made in relation to his inability to accept an Amendment something on the lines of that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is an Amendment which is very similar to the wording in the Highlands and Islands Act and I had hoped that the Government might see fit, if they could not accept the exact wording proposed, to accept something on these lines for one single reason. The noble Lord said how suspicious the people in this area might be of bureaucratic institutions coming in to undertake a business
484
in competition with the many small businesses and the small farms in that area.
Although, as the Minister has clearly stated, there is a relationship between this Clause 3 and also Clause 2(1)(b) which says that,
" the Board shall have the following duties…to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area ",
I wonder whether, in spite of that reference in Clause 2, he would not at least make some limitation in relation to the broad matters in Clause 3(1)(g) which is under consideration, which shows that the business undertakings with which this body will be concerned will be solely dealing with the economic and social development of the area. As I read the previous discussion on this point, that seems to be the message for the Members of this House: that there should be a clear differentiation of the duties of the Board in that if it did concern itself with businesses in any way it was solely for the economic and social development of the area. I may have misinterpreted the whole of the construction of this Bill: but it seems to me that it will be helpful to those who know the area if some modification of Clause 3 could once again he looked at by the Minister.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the beginning of this discussion, having had guests in another part of the building. I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I wonder whether he has considered that the real parentage of this matter is not the Highlands and Islands Act but, if I may suggest so, the New Towns Act 1946. As we have made clear in earlier debates on the details of the Bill, the Development Board will be taking over the new towns functions in that area. If this Amendment is passed as it is now drafted, it will make this unique among new towns. It would be the " odd man out " in a new town system which is working extremely well at the moment and about which, so far as I know, there is no complaint.
This body will be the successor running the new town in the middle of Wales in addition to its other duties. Section 2(2)

485
of the New Towns Act 1946 gives a development corporation—and the development corporation in this area possesses this power now—the following powers:
" to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town, and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the new town or for purposes incidental thereto."
This is a part of our new towns legislation which is operating in that area today without any worries at all.
I come now to the details of the Amendments put down by the noble Lord. It does not require the assent of the Secretary of State to operate those powers. The first point about the Amendment is that there is suddenly put in the Bill that these powers —which are already being operated in that area—shall henceforth be operated only with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. They have been doing this in the ordinary way and do not misuse those powers at the moment. The second point of detail is when we conic to the phraseology of the new clause where the noble Lord says that the Board shall have power to carry on any business or undertaking which in the opinion of the Board will contribute to the economic or social development of the area.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would put his mind to something that can arise in a new town. A piece of land is purchased with the proposal that it is to be used for part of housing development in the future. It is found that there is some farm land on it. Because the farmer has to sell the whole farm, or it is uneconomic to sell a part and be left with a truncated piece, the development corporation has to say, " We must carry on the business of farming for a while until we develop this land."
I should like to hear what the noble Lord says, but I would not think he could bring that under the umbrella that this farm will contribute to the economic or social development of the area. It is incidental to and is as a result of proposals for the economic and social development of the area, but it will not contribute directly to the economic or social development of the area. So the wording of the new clause is defective. If it is to go into the Bill it will have to be amended by the words used in the 1946 Act which is not—
486
to use the noble Lord's phrase—to, " contribute to the economic or social development of the area ", but,
"…for the purposes of the new town or the purposes of development ".
That is a totally different meaning which would cover the eventuality that arises every day or every year in the development ' of a new town. It would he dangerous to pass this new clause as it is presently worded.
I wonder whether noble Lords have honestly addressed themselves to the experience that we have in this country of operating new towns legislation. These powers have been in the New Towns Act for 30 years. None of them has been misused. I have never heard noble Lords or Members of another place saying, "tinder the New Towns Act the bodies in various parts of this country arc setting up undertakings and usurping the function of private business ". It has not happened. It has not happened because of assurances given in Parliament that that is not the intention of the Act and because in the original Act the Minister could tell them to desist if they operated such an undertaking that was not necessary in the circumstances. The situation is totally safeguarded by the assurances that have operated absolutely satisfactorily for 30 years in new towns legislation.
I consider this clause is defective as drafted; it goes against the traditions of the way we have operated satisfactorily for over 30 years in the new towns movement in this country. Going back to the ancestry of this matter, the correct phraseology is to copy the 1946 Act. In the last resort we have to reflect on the effect of the new towns in this area of Wales if suddenly it is made the " odd man out " of all the new towns up and down the country. That would he the effect of the proposals which noble Lords are making.
3.36 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I must say that I never realised what goes on in darkest Wales, if they are going to be covered with new towns. If the Amendments are unsuitable for the purpose of a body which is going to develop new towns, obviously the Amendment will have to be worded in such a way to conform with the normal new towns machinery.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is perhaps unaware that a new town already exists in this area. This Board is merely taking over that new town as well as doing other things.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, that does not alter my case. Apparently there are two completely different functions. One is to act as a new town corporation and the other is to develop the depths of darkest Wales. Clearly, we want two Amendments: one that brings the matter up to date regarding the new towns, and the other which conforms to the Highlands and Islands Development Board in its relations to the function that it exercises in rural Wales. I do not think that the Amendment should be entirely condemned just because one portion of its activities happens to he in a new town which apparently in England has these powers.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to support " hat the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. has been saying on this Amendment. It seems to many of-us that the Amendment, as drafted, provides powers for the Board, and we hope that these powers can be used in the same successful way as they have been used in the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, believed that these powers would clash with the powers of the new town. It seems to me that the powers, as set out in the Amendment, in no way restrict the powers of the new town. The new town is, albeit small, a geographical part of this large area of rural Wales and, as has been pointed out, perhaps there might need to be two Amendments. There are two particular powers which can be separated in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, mentioned farming. Farming is to he specifically covered by Amendment No. 5 which the noble Lord, Lord Elton. and I will be moving. It may appear to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that farming could be covered by this, as indeed any other undertaking or business could include farming. If the noble Lord could contain himself with patience, we shall be moving an Amendment which deals specifically with the problems he pointed out. They are in our minds and in the minds of the farming community in Wales.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, it does not alter my argument. A piece of
488
land could be purchased on which quarrying or any other business which existed on that land had to be continued.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned farming. We are going to mention farming in Amendment No. 5. Reference has been made to quarrying. and also market gardening was mentioned at an earlier stage. We accept this, hut our Amendment No. 5 will cover agricultural undertakings in this area. I cannot say that I was altogether convinced by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He went part of the way towards convincing us and at an earlier stage he mentioned part of a section in the Highlands and Islands Development Act. He did not refer to the whole of it, and we believe the whole of this section fits into this Bill.
I have a personal interest in that I live in an area which is covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and we have found the activities of that Board carried out with the utmost discretion and a great deal of responsibility. We believe that should these powers referred to in the Amendment he included in the Bill they would bring an increased degree of clarity.
I should like to raise one final point. The noble Lord. Lord Goronwy-Roberts. mentioned Clause 10 and the financial outlook of the Board. Would the noble Lord be able to clarify for us a Situation, which is entirely feasible, in which the Board might accumulate over a year or two some small surplus—because it is not acting to make an enormous profit but there is a good chance that it could accumulate a surplus—and would he be able to give some guidance as to whether it would be dealt with by the Secretary of State or the Board? Also. should the Board have this surplus financial assistance available. would it be able to use that for the purposes of paragraph (g)?—because this is a point which worries us a little.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. made a specific point about accumulated surpluses and perhaps I might direct him to Clause 12 which refers to the disposal of surplus funds by the Board. If there is any point beyond those contained in

489
that clause which he would like to pursue, I should be pleased to do my best to help him.
Certain objections, as I take them to be, were raised to the Board's undertaking any business at all. The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Northfield has pointed out, that the Board is empowered to carry out the development of new towns, and there is already a new town in this area which may be expanded in the future. There is at least a possibility that another new town might be set up in this area on the analogy of that already commenced. Neither will be a very large new town in the traditional sense. They will be of a size and character which marry conveniently to the geography and sociology of the area. So the Board is, and must be, empowered to act as a development corporation. This means, under the Statute quoted by my noble friend, and certainly under the New Towns Act 1965 in Section 3(2)(d), that they must have powers
" to carry on any business or undertaking in or for the purposes of the new town ".
I hardly think it would be the intention of this House to take away from one part of the United Kingdom, placed in this condition and under this necessity, a provision enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom under a Statute which provides for powers for developing new towns. Nothing is provided for here other than what is conferred by the Statute quoted by my noble friend and the one I have added to it in reference. So much for the need to provide power to undertake a business. It is not new; it is necessary in regard to the new town functions and obligations of this Board.
Regarding the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, I quoted Clause 2(1)(b). I hesitate to read out the whole of the relevant words, but it is quite clear in what it says:
"…the Board shall have the following duties…from time to time to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State for his approval proposals (whether of a general or specific character) for the economic and social development of the area or any part of it ".
The Secretary of State is very much in control. As to the Treasury, Clause 10(1), to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, refers, also is quite clear as to conditions under which the Secretary of State, as the dispensing Minister:
490
" may pay to the Board such sums in respect of expenditure incurred or to he incurred…".
That brings in the consent of the Treasury. So there the control, if one cares to use the word, of the Secretary of State and the Treasury are firmly worked into this Bill in Clauses 2 and 10.
As to the point that no such business or undertaking should be undertaken by the Board unless it conduces to the social and economic development of the area, this, too, is properly and fully provided for in the Bill as it now stands. I would refer your Lordships to Clause 1, Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales: This is what it says:
" For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area of Wales for which it is responsible…there shall be a body to he called the Development Board for Rural Wales…having, in relation to that area, the functions conferred or imposed by this Act."
I repeat:
" For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area ".
The Board would be ultra tires if it undertook any business or any act outside the general provisions of Clause I which says so clearly:
" For the purpose of promoting the economic and social well-being of the people in the area."
So I am a little at a loss to understand how—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the words as they stand do not put a time limit on it. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made the point that if they anticipated a new town they wanted an area for future development and would have to acquire a farm. How far ahead can they anticipate? Can they act in anticipation of what they intend to do in 30 years' time? The words are very general and not specific and do not give any time limit.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, here I think we should rest on a fairly long experience of how the Statutes have worked in practice. It is a fact, is it not, that these provisions have not been misused, certainly not in the sense suggested by the noble Lord. I think it would be misleading to indicate a date. But certainly I do not think a Board of this nature—any more than a new town authority—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but this is the second time we have heard that everything is whiter than white and that abuse has never taken place or advantage has not been taken of the powers bestowed. In the new Peterborough town (and the noble Baroness who sits alongside the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite would have knowledge of this) powers have been used to acquire the ownership of the whole of the centre of a shopping town, when in my view only part of it was required for the planning purposes involved. That was a case where these general powers, when put into practice, were to sonic extent abused.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while I am not familiar with what goes on in Peterborough, I imagine that they would have recourse to the normal procedures which need the proper approvals. I imagine that there would he the whole gamut of inquiry or Ministerial approval. Therefore I do not see that that argument is apposite to what we have in mind. I am tempted to say that I cannot think of a shopping centre in the whole of Mid Wales that is in danger of being taken over by anybody, because there is hardly a shopping centre there—not that Mid Wales is, in the rather pejorative terms used by the noble Lord, darkest Wales. Indeed, if the illumination of our darkness depended on the noble Lord, we should still persist in the most Stygian darkness.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I should have thought that the quality of darkness could be measured by the fact that there were no shops there.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, everybody has his own standards by which to measure darkness and light. do not know that the incidence of shops would commend itself to the somewhat more advanced population of Mid Wales. There are other considerations. However, we are on to a solid point here, that the Secretary of State and the Treasury are firmly brought into this and that the new towns powers, if I may so describe them, of the Board are necessary and will be exercised with at least the same sensibility and sensitiveness as over at least 30 years, going back only to the Silkin Act, we are familiar with.
492
Certainly in Mid Wales, since 1965, we are familiar with a pattern of sensitive behaviour in regard to what people want and will wear, and I suggest that in these days of over-government, if I may borrow the argument, it might be helpful to let them get on with this, applying these powers in their own way. There is always the question of approval from the Minister. There is also the question of approval of expenditure. I would not say there was too much danger of abuse of these powers, such as they are. Some of us may feel that the good people of Mid Wales who will man this Board ought to be given a little more freedom to develop in the way they want.
As to the exercise of the power, where that is necessary because other agencies—I do not advance this point in any partisan way—have found it impracticable, impossible or unattractive to do something, the Board, as in other new town contexts, will move to provide necessary facilities. I described its role as that of the reluctant entrepreneur. It would prefer private enterprise to get on with the work. I am sure it will do everything it can—in fact, it has done so in other contexts—to assist existing entrepreneurs to make a good job of providing certain facilities. But where, for quite substantial reasons, private organisations are unable to provide a facility, surely the Board has a duty to move in and do its best. Certainly, it would acquire by agreement. How otherwise could it move in an area like this, where there is the right kind of relationship and familiarity and a consensus of purpose? Certainly, in putting up a proposal to the Secretary of State it would find, whichever Party was in power, that he was very sensitive indeed to this point.
I close with an apology for having spoken at some length on this matter. I regard this Bill as something which, fundamentally, both sides of the House want to see implemented. I think that Wales wants it and Mid Wales is waiting for it. My noble friend Lord Northfield, with his great expertise, referred to the drafting of at least one of these two Amendments, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who made a rather spirited intervention which he repeated on the subject of light and darkness, also had a point when he suggested that the Amendments might need to be looked at. The-onus is on those who move Amendments

493
to see that they are in proper form. suggest to your Lordships that the right way to proceed is to leave the Bill as it is, which I think fulfills all the requirements that we have in mind, and certainly meets all the objections I have heard. It is not for the Government to change the Bill. If anything is to be changed it is. perhaps, the drafting of the. two Amendments which have been moved.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, particularly in view of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the general assurances given by Ministers in the course of discussions in this House and in the other place, whether he is now saying that when Clause 3(1)(g) gives general powers to the Board " to carry on any undertaking or business ", those powers will be exercised only in the very broad context that they are for the promotion of the economic and social wellbeing of the people in the area of Wales?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend has quoted Clause 1, which lays down the purpose of the Bill and the scope of the Board's activities. The rest of the Bill is to exemplify what is laid clown in Clause 1. I entirely agree with his interpretation of Clause 1.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, contrary to appearances perhaps, this is not a Committee stage and I regret that fact because I think further exchanges would be useful. If I may summarise one or two points, the question of control by the Secretary of State and the Treasury was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who referred us to Clause 12(1) which calls for the repayment of any unrequired surplus of funds. He raised this point in reply to a question by my noble friend Lord Lyell. What lies behind our question is this. The noble Lord says that all embarkations upon the seas of competitive enterprise by the Board would be under the surveillance of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, because of Clause 12(1). But it is not clear to me whether Clause 12(1) precludes the retention of a surplus—a cash float, if you like—by the Board, which it could deploy in embarking on, for instance, private enterprise under a public banner. That
494
is the reason why we raised that point and the reply did not make the position clear.
Of more substance, once the temporary refulgence of nationalism abated, is that there is a genuine doubt about the drafting of the Amendment as it affects existing new town legislation. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the onus of correctly amending a Bill rests upon those who move Amendments. I take his point, and I would not wish to commit the solecism of asking the House to divide on an Amendment which may he technically incorrect in a way which we had not suspected. But I must make it clear that nothing that has been said has allayed our feeling that there is a threat that the Board may use public money to the detriment of private enterprise.
This is a question not of motive, which noble Lords have hastened to reassure us about, but of actual effect. It is quite possible for a person of one philosophic persuasion to embark upon a course of action which he would regard as beneficial to the social and economic conditions of the region but with which others of a different, though not very different, persuasion would hotly disagree. For instance, some people think that to have a municipal chain of groceries would sharpen up the groceries business. We think that it would make an end of it. Now it would be open to those people to justify taking this course of action by saying that Clause I of the Bill provides that they could do anything, under Clause 3(1)(g)—
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: But subject to the provisions of Clause 1(1).
Lord ELTON: Precisely. That is what I mean. But it is a question of argument as to what is covered, and that we should want to make watertight. It is with regret that at this stage I do not press the Amendment because I feel that there is a majority in the House who would like to see it carried, but I would riot want the responsibility of having to alter it later. I feel that the noble Lord sitting opposite has further arguments to advance and that he might be able to meet us, at least to a limited extent. Therefore, I should like to reserve the position until I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord before Third Reading, and in those terms I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

UNCTAD IV
3.52 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"The fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development met in Nairobi, Kenya, from 5th to 31st May.
" The Conference adopted resolutions by consensus on a number of matters including commodity policy, developing country debt, the transfer of technology and certain institutional issues. In addition, a resolution was adopted by majority vote on transnational corporations, and a resolution on the development of international mechanisms to facilitate resource development in developing countries, including the proposal to consider the establishment of an International Resources Bank, was rejected in a vote by a narrow margin." The major achievement was that consensus was reached on a resolution on commodities, the central issue before the Conference. The resolution provides for a programme of negotiation, within a defined timetable, on products which have been identified as of particular interest to the developing countries. I welcome this decision, which I sought in my opening statement for the United Kingdom at the outset of the Conference. It will give concrete shape to proposals put forward in Kingston a year ago by my right honourable friend, the Member for Huyton.
The resolution also provides for preparatory meetings in relation to a common fund for buffer stock financing, to be followed by a negotiating Conference, not later than March 1977, which will be open to all the members of UNCTAD. It is clearly right that this proposal should be studied further. The resolution recognises that there are differences of view on the objectives and modalities of a common fund, and in common with a number of other developed countries we have made it clear that our acceptance of the resolution is on the basis of that understanding."
I am glad to say that consensus was also reached on debt on the basis
496
of a proposal which we had put forward in the course of negotiations. The resolution adopted by the Conference confirms the willingness of the developed countries to consider quickly and constructively requests for help from any individual developing country finding itself in difficulties. It also provides for work to be done internationally in existing fora to establish from past and current experience what features might give flexible guidance for future operations.
" We approached the Conference with a full recognition of the serious problems which face the developing countries and of the contribution which the Conference could make in seeking ways to alleviate those problems. Despite the differences of view which remained on certain points, I believe that the Conference has made a substantial contribution towards that objective. For our part, we shall play a full and constructive role in the programme of international work which the Conference has set in hand.
" An account of all the issues dealt with by the Conference will be published in a White Paper as soon as is practicable this summer. And I am placing in the Library the text of the various resolutions which were adopted by consensus or voted on together with an explanatory statement made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Overseas Development, on the resolution on commodities."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, and I think we should sympathise with Her Majesty's Government over the difficulties of negotiating in a Conference that is preorientated to a solution which we may not feel the best of the alternative solutions to the predicament of the underdeveloped countries. However, we must note that the group of 77, who have a political spectrum ranging from Chile to Tanzania, managed, as a result of the Manila declaration, to maintain a united front, whereas the " B " group countries, including ourselves, were unable to produce a negotiating basis at

497
all until the last Thursday of the Conference. Our own contribution was the EEC position in which we and Germany had reserved positions.
Therefore, it must be a subject of regret that we have not kept up the impetus that was reached at Kingston under a previous Prime Minister, that there has been so little progress on access which should be on the EEC agenda and that the Statement tells us that there are friendly views towards debtor countries. But in regard to all the agreements which we arc told have been made we are told the subject and not the content; so we cannot be jubilant about those. We should like to know more about the transfer of technology, for instance, and we are surprised that there is no reference to the OPEC countries who hold a crucial role in the situation vis-à-vis both the developed and the undeveloped countries. If we are to proceed apace, I should have thought that we would take the lesson of Manila and try to agree a position before we proceed further.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that if we do not take seriously our plain duty to alleviate in some measure the lot of the least fortunate of our fellow men, we shall be endangering the stability and security of our own people within the span of a generation. We do not have to open either a soup kitchen or a cornucopia in order both to fulfil our obligations and to win the good will of those who are at present open to recruitment into hostility and envy against us. The alternative is to sit like the fat boy in front of the larder door until those hungrier and more numerous than we, armed with hostile political doctrines and possibly hardware as well, shoulder us aside, possibly permanently.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches are glad that the Conference did not end in failure, as Press reports suggested was likely to happen, but I am not clear how far we can say that it was a success. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that nothing really positive on commodities has yet been agreed. There is an agreement to negotiate on certain individual commodities, which is to be welcomed as far as it goes, and to hold meetings to
498
discuss a common fund for a buffer stock arrangement, on the usefulness and nature of which there are, as the Statement emphasises, considerable differences of opinion. I should like to ask why the Government have had such hesitations about a common fund and whether as an alternative a development of the STABEX arrangement as incorporated in the Lomé Agreement was considered.
Finally, I am bound to deplore the disunity which was displayed by the EEC countries during the Conference. It seems to have been a long way off the united front in dealing with the developing countries which was advocated by Mr. Tindemans in his recent report.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, began with an admirable summary, as I saw it, of the difficulties of negotiating vastly complex matters of this kind within the compass of a large conference in the course of a month, but he finished with what I thought was rather too simplistic a summing-up of the United Kingdom Government's attitude to the developing countries. We are not any fat boy sitting at any door. We have an aid programme towards the developing countries of which we are proud and when recently, regrettably and unfortunately, certain cuts in public expenditure had to be programmed we were able to exempt from those cuts our aid programme. I think that is a better exemplification of this Government's attitude to the developing countries.
The noble Lord regretted, as indeed I think we can all regret, and as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, regretted, the fact that there were divisions within the councils of the developing countries. This is clear and it is true, but I can say that at no stage during the conference were we in any way isolated, either from the European Community or from the Group B countries as a whole. So the divisions, although obviously there, were not of such a fundamental importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also suggested that in Nairobi we had failed to carry forward the initiatives that were taken by my right honourable friend Sir Harold Wilson at the Kingston conference a year ago. Rather do I see that as being an initiative, valuable results from which have appeared in

499
Nairobi. There has been preparatory work on the basis of the Kingston initiative, which came out successfully in the concluding resolutions of the Nairobi conference, and the programme for consideration of commodity by commodity arrangements is one of the substantial achievements.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether I could not agree that there had been no agreement on commodities. In one sense this is tale, if what lie was looking for was very precise, businesslike, detailed agreements about the handling of any particular commodity or group of commodities, but I have attended a number of these conferences and it is my experience that it is asking for the impossible to expect that sort of result. What was achieved, and with great success and as a result of the initiative taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, was the establishment of a timetable which is contained in the Statement which I repeated, and a timetable is a very effective instrument in these matters.
Therefore, I think the attitude of those noble Lords who have attempted to criticise what went on is a little out of place, although with them I will fully accept that of course we would all wish to see greater and more rapid progress. But in the statement which I repeated was the United Kingdom Government's determination to play a full part in the coming months to see that further progress can be made.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, although it was brief, the Statement is of fundamental importance and rather than making comments without having seen the resolution and ultimately having a chance of reading the White Paper, may I ask whether that White Paper will be published before we go into Recess, so that we may gather voices and experience in this House to discuss the White Paper, and see what the feelings of your Lordships are at that time?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the statement indicated that we hope the White Paper will be published this summer. When we go into Recess I am not sure, being a newcomer to this House, but I should think that would meet my noble friend's wishes. In any case, I would draw his
500
attention to the fact that my noble friend Lord Brockway has an Unstarred Question to put on 17th June which will give us a good opportunity of carrying these matters further forward.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to join with the spokesmen of the Opposition Parties in expressing their gratitude to the Minister for repeating in this House the important Statement which has been made elsewhere. I appreciate that particularly because it indicates the importance of this subject in the minds of the Government. In this short exchange we cannot possibly deal with these issues in detail. I hope the fact that we are to have a certain debate next week will enable us to deal with these matters more fully.
I must honestly say this: Despite the rather favourable impression given at the conference at Nairobi by the Minister, the reports which I have received from those who were actually present at Nairobi indicate that the wide and deep differences between the developing countries and the industrialised countries still remain. The spokesman for the official Opposition i referred to the Committee of 77. That Committee now represents 113 developing countries in the world and they are unanimous in their support of a new world economic order, determining the relations between the industrialised and developing countries. At Bretton Woods 30 years ago these nations were not represented, and the structure of international economic relations was heavily weighted on the side of the industrialised nations. They are now becoming a political force in the world and it is due to them and their proposals for a new world economic order that these issues are being raised.
I want to pay my tribute to the past Prime Minister for the initiative he took at the Kingston conference. These matters have now been discussed at the Commonwealth Conference, the United Nations, the meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth Countries and on two occasions at UNCTAD. As Her Majesty's Government are looking back at what has happened at Nairobi I want to ask them to look at this position with new eyes, understanding that we are in a new world and, if we are to deal with

501
the appalling poverty of the millions who are in the developing countries, new economic arrangements must be made giving them equality of opportunity and fair representation on international organs. I urge Her Majesty's Government to go even further than they have at Nairobi in meeting these demands.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I say just a few words in sharp contradiction to the speech we have just heard. I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the caution with which at this large conference they have approached the question of commodity policy. Commodity policy is not a new idea; it was first launched on the world as an official programme by the Coalition Government at the Hot Springs Conference, at which it was my duty to lead for Her Majesty's Government. I assure your Lordships that the policy put forward at that time by the Coalition Government was a spacious and generally conceived policy, largely owing its origin to the fertile imagination of the late Lord Keynes. That policy ran on the rocks because of the attitude of certain underdeveloped countries. I assure your Lordships that there are very considerable dangers in pursuing that line without the greatest caution. I am not—I repeat, not—against giving aid to underdeveloped countries, but I am certainly against entering into commitments which might lead to a pronounced turn in the terms of trade of this country at a time when we can ill afford an adverse turn in the terms of trade.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I would not wish to dissent at all from the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Brockway about the polarisation in this conference which we have come to recognise in recent years, characterised by the Group of 77, on the one hand, and Group B, on the other. It is a feature of international conferences which I personally deplore. At a number of conferences I have seen it as being an obstacle to the achievement of practical results. Therefore, I think we should constantly be looking for means of reducing that polarisation both in the attitudes which we, the United Kingdom, adopt at these conferences and also perhaps by institutional means as well. I have in
502
mind the Commonwealth as being a particular community capable of acting as a bridge, because the Commonwealth includes within itself both developing and developed countries. I know that in future, as in the past, conferences, consultations will take place with Commonwealth partners in order to see what positive role the Commonwealth can play. Indeed, consultations were constantly being held at Nairobi in relation to the recent conference.
I would welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in the sense that the noble Lord asked us to he cautious and perhaps pragmatic in these matters in the light of years of experience. It is true that the negotiating of commodity I agreements has been a long and difficult process. If that has been true in relation to individual commodities, we should not he too optimistic about getting a global agreement in one single conference covering a whole range of commodities. But although one is inclined to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said, nevertheless I think we must still have in mind the concluding sentences of my noble friend Lord Brockway about the duty of the developed world towards the poverty-stricken countries. We must remember that the behaviour of prices of world commodities is absolutely fundamental to the economic welfare of the developing countries. It is perfectly natural that they should put high among their priorities the achievement of greater success in these matters than hitherto has been possible. My Lords, having regard to the fact that there is to be a White Paper, and that we are to have a short debate on the subject in a few days' time I hope that now we may be allowed to leave the matter there.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
Report stage resumed.
4.16 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) The powers conferred by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall only be exercised in respect of agricultural or forestry land when the Board proposes to change the use of such lands to other purposes.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts a new subsection into the Bill and also gives an opportunity to Her Majesty's Government to put beyond question the sincerity of their twice-repeated statement that they have no intention of embarking on agriculture, horticulture or forestry. In the remarks that follow, it is not necessary for me to refer specifically to horticulture because we shall shortly be taking an Amendment in which a definition of " agriculture " is proposed which includes the definition of " horticulture ". I should be grateful if your Lordships would understand the term as including both.
On Committee stage we emphasised, and I think persuaded Her Majesty's Government to agree with us to some extent, that there was a need to secure the confident co-operation of the agricultural and forestry community which the terms of this Bill are intended to protect and advance. The price of doing this is to exclude from the Bill any power for the Board to compete with them in their own activities or to regulate those activities by regulation. On Committee stage, we excluded such activities specifically from paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this clause, and the only plausible objection in my view to such a course, advanced by noble Lords opposite. was that on occasion such activities were necessary as, for instance, when a block purchase of development land was necessary in advance of the development of parts of it. I accept that where it is necessary to buy 5,700 or 5,000 acres for purposes of development and only 2½, 250 or 2,500 acres are called into use by the contractors and developers at any one time, the remainder cannot properly be left to degenerate into a wilderness. But this should not be an excuse for the undertaking of acts of husbandry on a commercial scale for other reasons. We now therefore table a revised Amendment which specifically admits the use of the powers granted in paragraph (a) of this subsection only where it is necessary to do so in order to preserve the nature and the amenity of an area that is in agriculture, because the use of the whole of it is intended by the Board to be changed.
My Lords, paragraph (a) at present empowers the Board
" to acquire, hold, manage, develop and dispose of land or other property; "
and the Amendment lays down that where such powers are used in respect of agricultural or forestry land, they can only be exercised with a view to the change of use of that land. Therefore, it will not be open to the Board to farm land in perpetuity: it will be open to it to manage land for agricultural and forestry purposes when it has had to purchase more than necessary to satisfy its immediate needs.
There remain other loopholes in Clause 3(1) in which the Board might become engaged in the commercial growing of crops. We have already discussed paragraph (g) in extenso, and paragraph (h) may also be called in aid. While we accept the sincerity of the protestations of Her Majesty's Government that they had no such intentions, we feel that as these amount to a political undertaking, they should make sure that there is a political means of seeing they are honoured by entrusting the task to a politician in charge. Amendment No. 6, therefore, which your Lordships might care to consider at the same time, lays down that any decision to embark on such a course shall be subject, under subsection (4), to approval by the Secretary of State.
Acceptance of these Amendments will in no way circumscribe the proper functions of the Board. It will do much to allay fears, which, however groundless, are very real, as to the long-term intentions of the Government for the operations of this Board, which may be the responsibility of other Governments totally unforeseen by us in the next 10 or 15 years. It will be welcomed, therefore, by us. Noble Lords opposite will find it difficult in the extreme to persuade me that this is not the appropriate stage to improve the Bill in this manner. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I begin by emphasising that the whole purpose, the whole approach, behind the proposals in this Bill is the need to supplement the economic development of the towns and villages in rural Wales, and not to intervene in the agricultural and forestry industries of the area. That is well understood in Mid Wales. It will be well and truly appreciated by the members of the Board. When the Consultation Document in relation to these proposals was issued, outlining the Government's intention that

505
the Board should not engage in agriculture, forestry and fishing activities, that was publicised and known. Indeed, on behalf of the Government and the Secretary of State I repeated that at the Committee stage, and I repeat now that it is not intended that the Board should acquire land for the purpose of engaging in farming.
I quite understand the concern which has led the noble Lord to put down these Amendments, but in order to assure him that there will be, so to speak, political controls to restrain any future intention to engage in farming, and in order to be sure that the farming community is protected from any attempt by the Board to engage in the restructuring of agriculture or farming for its own sake, I invite the House to note, first, that the Board must submit the proposals it has in mind to the Secretary of State for his approval under the provisions of Clause 2(1)(b). If proposals to take over or engage upon agricultural or forestry or horticulture were contemplated, there is no doubt whatsoever of the response that such proposals would receive from the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the power conferred on the Board to acquire land is a power to acquire land with the approval of the Secretary of State where land is acquired by agreement, and only if authorised by the Secretary of State where land is acquired compulsorily. There will be the customary public inquiries and other protections in regard to compulsory acquisitions. But in either case the Secretary of State would clearly wish to know the reasons for the purchase, and it is inconceivable, in the light of the public and authoritative statements that have been made, that there would be a departure from the real purpose of the setting up of the Board. Finally, the Secretary of State has the power to give directions to the Board should either of those two checks on the activity of the Board in one way or other not be applied.
Therefore, I invite the House to take the view that there are these safeguards. The whole point of the setting up of the Board is, as I said at the beginning, to supplement the economic development of towns and villages. There is no intention of intervening in the agricultural life there, the
506
farming. Accordingly, I hope in the light of the provisions of the Bill and the assurances that I repeat once again, the noble Lord will feel content not to press the proposed Amendments which he has moved.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful for the eloquent way in which the noble and learned Lord, and indeed others, have sought to calm and in some way allay our fears on behalf of the agricultural and forestry industries, if I can call them that, in rural Wales. But I must say that, despite the eloquence of today's words by the noble and learned Lord, my fears are not entirely stilled. We all agree that for all sorts of development in rural Wales there needs to be such a thing as a land bank for development. The noble and learned Lord referred to towns and villages, and one might need to take agricultural land to ensure that the towns and villages should be placed on a viable footing, with regard to housing, possibly light industry, recreational building and things of this nature. Of course, we agree that land would need to be taken for this, and that the Development Board, or indeed local authorities, would need to build up what we call a land bank. I think these points have been covered in earlier stages of the Bill, and certainly by I my noble friend Lord Elton.
Nevertheless, as the Bill stands at present, I and others of my friends on these Benches believe that agriculture and horticulture may well be harmed —we do not say it will be, but it may be—as opposed to being encouraged, as so eloquently set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. They have stressed that everything in this Bill seeks to encourage forestry and agriculture as an integral part of rural Wales. We accept their good wishes, but we are not entirely convinced that the Bill as it stands does indeed cover every aspect of this encouragement that we would wish to see.
We agree that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to preclude the setting up of a land bank, which, of course, is a laudable concept. Possibly I could give your Lordships one example of what we have in mind. There might well be some good low-lying land around a small town,

507
a new town perhaps, or a village. This might be part of a farm with good low-lying fields which provide winter fodder for stock, sheep, cattle. I can imagine cases where these good acres would he needed for further development as part of a land hank, for one or perhaps more villages, and for several purposes; it might not be for housing or for industrial purposes, it might be for recreational purposes. We heard a considerable amount about this aspect at an earlier stage from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. Of course, we agree with this. But there could be the possibility that the good acres of this particular farm would be needed for development, they would be zoned for development and be acquired, compulsorily or by agreement, from the farmer.
But some of us would like to know what is going to happen to the poor upland area, which, without the low-lying acres which grow the fodder, will probably not be a viable unit. If the good acres have been removed for development, for the total benefit of the whole community—let us admit it—these particular acres would be without any viable means of support in an agricultural sense. I think this argument would also apply to forestry. If it happened that the good and very fertile land so far as it would go, were to be acquired for other purposes, it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that the existing farmer would not want, and would not be able to afford, to go on farming this piece of land.
Certainly, what is in my mind—and I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord will be able to still this fear in my mind—is who would take over, how they would take over, and how much it is going to cost. Is it not going to be very expensive for the purposes of taking over this rather poor land? This is something that, as a farmer in another part of the United Kingdom, worries me. As the Bill is drafted I do not think that all my fears are covered, and indeed my concern is as great as ever.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I have not just walked in; I have been standing by the telephone and listening to the debate. There are two points I should like to make. First with regard to what the noble Lord has just said, it is accepted that when one physically plans for
508
development purposes, building purposes, one should and does go for the poorer type of land where it is possible to find that type of land. No one wants to see good agricultural land taken over for building purposes. I have said this before, and I am quite sure that it is the intention of the Government that one should proceed in that way whenever one can.
I want to make one point because no one has mentioned this. In planning for development one has to take into account the needs of the public, particularly in what I would call marginal town areas. One has to provide for open space and for parkland. This may not be relevant, but one has to be quite sure of what one is saying when one talks about farming. I have seen sheep in Hyde Park to keep the grass down. Is this farming or is it not farming? If these Amendments would preclude any operation of that sort in perpetuity, that would be a mistake.
There is another matter which interests me. There is a need to provide what one could call open farms, exhibition farms, so that the public could visit them and understand farming practices, and take children to them in order to let them see how farming is done, and to see the animals, to catch the animals, to play with the animals and so on. I am a trustee of a venture of this kind in Milton Keynes, which is far from Wales but nevertheless the concept is the same. If land is taken over and managed by a local authority which wished to establish such an open farm for perfectly good purposes, then it would be a mistake if these Amendments would exclude the use of any of the land in perpetuity for that purpose. I appreciate that I may be off target and saying things which are not relevant to these Amendments, but since no one else has mentioned or perhaps thought about this aspect of the matter, I thought that I ought to get on my feet to mention it.
4.33 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I have been asked questions, perhaps I may be accorded leave to speak again. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, raised first the question of the land bank. There is no provision in the Bill for the creation of a land bank and no intention in the

509
Bill to create any new powers for that purpose. He expressed concern that, for instance, what might he the most viable and profitable part of a farmer's land might be taken over. On the extent of any land acquisition involved in what is proposed in the Bill, which is essentially a Bill to provide small industry and to help towns and villages to develop economically, may I first emphasise that what will be required for those purposes by way of land acquisition will be very limited indeed. If it does become necessary then of course there will be provision for compensation.
The whole essence of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was to be sure that there was no intention in the Bill, or in the powers that are provided, that the Board should embark upon farming. I am afraid that I must disappoint my noble friend Lord Collison by indicating that it is certainly not the intention to develop farming as part of the powers of this Board, however useful he, in his great experience, has found it elsewhere. If I failed to give that assurance I should have the noble Lord, Lord Elton, breathing very fiercely down whatever portion of the anatomy is relevant. Certainiy we have no intention of pursuing farming as part of the powers and functions exercised by the new Board. In the light of those assurances—and I do not know how often one must repeat assurances of Ministerial intentions, reinforced, as they are, by provisions in the Bill—I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently satisfied not to press these Amendments.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I have to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, in spite of the length of his wig, it is his neck that I breathe down, and I breathe down it now. It is not the intentions of Her Majesty's present Government that are in question: it is the powers of some future body not yet created; and the powers do not exclude the possibility of agricultural land being used for agricultural purposes per se. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, brought into question the definition of agriculture, to which we shall be reverting in a later Amendment, and Which I can assure him does not exclude the use of ornamental and other kinds of park and recreational
510
land since it is taken from the Planning Acts which themselves enable these areas to be developed for that purpose. I take note of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about exhibition farms. In the generality these are suitable attributes or conjunctions for conurbations in large cities. Rural Wait's, with which we are dealing, is rural after all, and most primary school teachers are within a 5p bus ride (which may get dearer) or half-an-hour's or 20 minutes' walk of a mixed livestock farm, and I think that those were the sort of purposes he had in mind for them to be used for.
The noble and learned Lord advanced three very telling arguments to the effect that the Secretary of State would be called in and would exercise an executive responsibility where land was acquired by the Board and where plans were submitted to him by it. Also he said that he had the power to direct if these powers themselves proved to fail, and therefore, he said, that political direction and political protection of this undertaking existed. I have no closed or unreasonable mind. If, as I suspect, on re-reading them, the points he has made on this Amendment prove to be convincing then I shall be perfectly happy, but all those arguments so far have been directed against the second of the two Amendments we are discussing, Amendment No. 6. The only thing that we had in mitigation of the worries which gave rise to the principal Amendment, Amendment No. 5, was that the Government did not propose to intervene in agriculture. As I said at the outset of my reply to this small debate, we are not questioning that. We do not suspect them of harbouring darkly covetous views of pleasant patches of arable or grazing land in Wales. What we are exercised about is the fact that they propose to give this possibility to a body over which they eventually will not have control. That is what is exercising the anxieties of those whose support and interest we, and also he, seek to enlist to further the course of this Bill. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied by what he has said about Amendment No. 6.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst, E.

Exeter, M.

Ogmore, L..

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Ampthill, L.

Gage, V.

Radnor, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Garner, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Balerno, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Banks, L.

Goschen, V.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Sackville, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bessborough, E.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Birdwood, L.

Sandford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Somers, L.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L:.

Stamp, L.

Cairns, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strang, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strachclyde, L.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cathcart, F.

Inglewood, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Teviot, L.

Cross, V.

Long, V.

Thurlow, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tranmire, L.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Vernon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.,

Mansfield, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Wigoder, L.

Effingham, E.

Middleton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Elles, B.

Monck, V.

Wrottesley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Platt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Samuel, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Milford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
(" or
(c) to carry on any agricultural undertaking or business.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment was to secure

513
protection against the danger, to which I alluded when discussing an earlier Amendment, that agricultural undertakings might he taken on board by the Board in some section of Clause 1 not covered by the previous Amendment.
In the light of what the noble and learned Lord said in his reply to our Amendment No. 5, which I believe covered the ground very adequately and to which I have already said I shall give careful attention because I feel that it shows the possibility of covering the case, I shall not move the Amendment.
Clause 5 [Acquisition of land]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 18, after (" subject to ") insert (" Part IV of that code and ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which involves no change of substance. The explanation of it is somewhat technical and complicated but if, on this warm and agreeable afternoon, your Lordships would like me to embark upon that exercise I shall do so. However, as I give my assurance that the Amendment makes no change of substance, it may suffice for me simply to beg to move the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Limit on public money made available to the Board]:
4.54 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
" (4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this above, moneys received by the Board by way of grants or loans from the Commission of the European Communities shall not be held to contribute to the aggregate amount referred to in that subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this will prove to be a fairly simple Amendment. We should like some assurance that any or all financial assistance which would come outwith the sources detailed in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) should be treated entirely separately. By that, I mean that I hope that it will be totally agreeable and acceptable that such assistance should be treated as a valuable bonus on top of the limits which have been
514
discussed and agreed to earlier. The total limits which were mentioned at earlier stages were, I believe—and the noble and learned Lord will be able to correct me—in the region of £25 million with a possibility of an increase to £40 million at any one time.
The Amendment seeks merely to ensure that any financial assistance to rural Wales from, let us say, the EEC or any other source outwith the sources of finance mentioned in the present clause should be treated as a bonus and should go direct to the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Amendment seeks to ensure that, though, they may have to come through the Treasury, such sums should not be treated as part of the totals of £25 million or £40 million available for borrowing. We hope that this is a simple matter and we look forward to knowing whether the noble and learned Lord will be able to confirm what is in our minds. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should greatly wish to be able to give an immediate affirmative to the suggestion that is proposed. The purpose of the limit of £25 million which the clause places on the monies to be made available to the Board is to limit the net cash requirements of the Board to that figure. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, does not need me to say that, at this moment of time above all moments of time, it is essential to keep a tight rein on the expenditure of all bodies that are financed from the Exchequer. If those bodies, for the purposes of their duties, are able to obtain funds from other sources, thereby reducing the extent of Exchequer expenditure, I am sure that the Opposition Front Benches, of all Front Benches at this moment will echo the view that if anything can be saved for the public Exchequer it should be. The provisions of the clause are the means used to control the expenditure of the Board. Similar limitations are imposed on other public authorities. For instance, a year ago similar provisions were included in the Welsh and Scottish Development Agency Acts, although the figures were of course different.
Clause 11 is drafted to include all borrowings by the Board, from whatever source, within the overall limits of public

515
money to be made available to the Board, together with grants from the Secretary of State and sums paid by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees. That includes borrowing from Europe. It would be quite wrong and contrary to the way in which the expenditure of public bodies is controlled if it were otherwise and wrong to make different arrangements for the Board in this respect from those that apply to other comparable public authorities.
I ought to add that assistance from the EEC would never be more than a supplement, within agreed expenditure limits, to the main source of finance, which is the Exchequer itself, although there could be direct benefits to the Board. Noble Lords will he aware that loans from some European sources, for example the European Investment Bank, can be at attractive rates of interest which, if the Board were to obtain exchange risk cover from the Treasury, would give at least a percentage point advantage in interest rates over alternative courses, so making it cheaper to finance activities within its overall expenditure limits.
With regard to grant assistance from the EEC, a number of public authority activities are eligible for assistance and some of the Board's activities may be eligible in the same way. Naturally, since the various funds are set up for different purposes and operate in different ways, a variety of arrangements exists to deal with different types of grant. In many cases, only the central Government may apply for and receive grant aid, either on their own behalf or on behalf of project sponsors. For example, for infrastructure schemes under the European Regional Development Fund project, sponsors can receive grant assistance through central Government. The grants are then used to relieve authorities of part of their borrowing requirements, so making it easier and more economical for them to carry out their existing programmes, but not to finance additional spending. In the case of the FEOGA—and lest noble Lords may believe that to be yet another Welsh word which I have introduced into the discussion, it means Fonds Européan d'Orientation et de Garantie Agrieole—Individual Projects Scheme, the Board would have to make a contribution itself and be in receipt of specific grant aid for the project from the
516
United Kingdom Government as a condition of application before it could apply to the EEC. As the application would be processed through the United Kingdom Government, account is likely to be taken of possible receipts from the EEC in calculating annual grant-in-aid to the Board. In any event, it is not certain what the future holds for these schemes when the present financial provisions have been exhausted.
I have gone into this matter in some detail in order to avoid raising false. hopes and because of what I suspect will now emerge from the Opposition Front Bench—that is, the importance of avoiding excessive expenditure at this time. If money becomes available to the Board from other sources, it should be taken into account in the amount of Government grant which should go to sustain the Board's activities.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I hope that the Opposition are quite clear about what they are trying to do. I recall that when we wanted German military exercises in Pembroke there was no discussion at all about how much money was spent for the German Army to exercise there because they did not have enough room in Germany. That was the story. As an old member of the German Youth Hostel movement, in pre-Hitler days, I used to contribute. Let us suppose that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is presented with an act of graciousness on the part of the EEC in which it wants to make contributions to the youth hostel movement in many of the beautiful parts of rural Wales. Would the Opposition prevent that because it was getting nearer this £25 million?
Wales is not receiving any eleemosynary help from the Common Market. The House should be clear about this. The Opposition should have read the White Paper on public expenditure which was published the other day. They will see that the Common Market received from Britain £181 million and gave us £77 million. I am quoting the White Paper, and it will be seen that in 1974 the Common Market received £179 million from us and gave us £148 million. We would have done better keeping the lot. In 1975 we paid £342 million to the Common Market and received £396

517
million. I am not arguing whether we are in a better or a worse position, but we have given more money than we have received. We made a gross contribution of £470 million in 1976 and got £305 million. I do not expect to get a great deal from Wales. I think it is rather niggardly. I want relationships with the Common Market, and I want them to he relationships which will build up international understanding and which will eradicate war. Europe must come together one day. But for heaven's sake forget it. It was presented as though we were getting gifts for nothing from the Common Market. We are paying in, and perhaps in some cases it is worth while. But I do not see any use in this Amendment. In fact, in many ways, including international understanding, it may prevent progress in rural Wales.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is tempting but I shall try not to pursue the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, too far along the tantalising avenues that he opens before us. But I must put the record straight. First, the object of the exercise is to enable us to take full advantage of any money that is going, and I am not one to say that we should not have more. But if the effect of the Board's getting a grant from some European body (whether it is FEOGA, or some other organisation with a less Welsh-sounding name) is simply to reduce the amount of money it can get from central Government, then the incentive for it to do so is reduced. The incentive then rests at Cabinet level and Treasury level. The Treasury says, " You must reduce your borrowing from the central Government by getting some money from somewhere else." If, on the other hand, there is no advantage to the Board in getting the money, it makes no difference to them whether they pay their interest in francs or in pence. Then there is much more incentive if they advance their position by getting extra money. Therefore I do not think it is unpatriotic, nor do I think that it is curmudgeonly, to suggest that this would be a good thing. As to the manoeuvres on Castle Martin Camp, with which I am so painfully familiar (with the camp, not the manoeuvres) one should notice an element of reciprocity because of the training carried out by British troops on a much larger scale in the Federal Republic. I do not want to pursue the
518
matter further than that, and I think that my noble friend who moved the Amendment wants to say something in conclusion.
We wanted to get an exposition, which we now have, of what is the status of funds obtained from Europe, and it is the Government's view that these should he taken in reduction of funds available from Westminster. I am not sure that we follow in that; it is a matter which we might pursue in another place. But in case my noble friend wishes to add to this, I will give way to him.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I suggested that this was a fairly simple Amendment but it seems to have generated quite a lively discussion. We are very grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The noble and learned Lord said that he hoped he had clarified some of the points I raised. I go further than that and say that he has been most generous in his clarification, and in setting out differences in borrowings and in grants. He has set at rest many of the doubts which were in my mind and in the minds of my noble friends, amid an avalanche of statistics and details. We would not wish to pursue this matter further and, thanks to the explanations given by the noble and learned Lord, I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Powers of entry]:
5.5 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("48 hours'") and insert ("5 days").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 11 with Amendment No. 10. During the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Elton, giving a vivid description of his life as a shepherd watching the flocks by day and by night, satisfied me that to empower representatives of the authority concerned to go within a matter of hours to investigate the sub-soil might disturb not only the shepherd but also the sheep. Accordingly, the Government have thought it right to accept, in effect, the Amendments which he proposed. The effect of the first Amendment is to extend the required

519
period of notice before persons authorised by the Secretary of State, the Board or a local highway authority can enter on land to survey it from 48 hours to 5 days for non-residential land, and from 7 days to 14 days for residential land. In the light of this acceptance of what was asked for from various parts of the Chamber during Committee stage, I hope that this Amendment will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise to reply to that generous statement. I notice that on each occasion when I seek leave to get an Amendment for an extension of the period of notice, the noble and learned Lord is very reluctant, but he always gives way in the end, and for this I am grateful. He also takes amusement in my earlier pursuits in the agricultural field. I think it is worth noting that the occupants of the Benches opposite do not have an exclusive monopoly of the experience of manual labour which they hold in such high esteem—and very arduous and unpleasant labour it sometimes is as well. I am not at all ashamed of having earned my living in this way for a number of years, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to turn it to the profit of countless other shepherds in the hills and valleys of Wales. I welcome the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say at once by way of explanation that I did not regard it as a matter of amusement that the noble Lord was once a shepherd; on the contrary, it is a matter for great admiration which I am sure the noble Lord will now receive by way of accolade not only from me but from all noble Lords present in the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 6, leave out (" 7 ") and insert (" 14 ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Interpretation.]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 18, line 39, at end insert (" agricultural " has the meaning assigned to it by section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords. the purpose of this Amendment is purely clarification. I have referred to it sufficiently in advance with other Amendments. Its principal effect is to include horticulture with the meaning of the word " agriculture " and " horticultural with " agricultural This will clarify the effect of the Bill in cases of land under husbandry which might be thought to be a market garden rather than a farm. That is the principal effect, but obviously the Bill needs a definition of the word " agriculture " and this seems the most appropriate. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is imperative that the word " agricultural " should be defined in Clause 32. The definition proposed has an eminently respectable origin, and is acceptable to the Government.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Development Board for Rural Wales]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 20, line 22, leave out (" consultation with ") and insert (" consulting—
(a) the council of each county and of each district any part of whose area is included in the area for which the Board is responsible; and
(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, here again I am happy to say that, with their customary reasonableness and willingness to listen to all reasonable argument and suggestion in debate, the Government find themselves in effect able to accept the proposed Amendment. It indeed gives effect to the view which was expressed in Committee with great eloquence by a formidable array: my noble friend Lord Champion; the noble Lord, Lord Elton; the noble Viscount, Lord Simon; the noble Viscount, Lord Amory; and my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. Who could resist such a powerful combination? It requires the Secretary of State now, when consulting on the membership of the Board, to consult each

521
county and district council any part of whose area is in the Board's area of responsibility, in addition to such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities in Wales as already provided in Schedule 1, paragraph 3(3). I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I, in reply to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Champion, who is unavoidably absent, say, " Thank you " and how grateful we are for this? The unity on both sides of the House in this case I find very enjoyable indeed. I do not want to delay the proceeding any longer, but I wanted to say that my noble friend Lord Champion is not here today because he is unable to be present.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should merely like to add my thanks, in concurrence with what has been said by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 20, line 24, at end insert—
(" (4) One office as member of the Board shall be held by a member appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Wales Tourist Board.
(5) One office as member of the Board shall he held by a member appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with bodies that appear to him to be representative of agricultural and forestry interests in the area.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may possibly seem a little repetitious, because we have discussed at length earlier in this Bill, and at earlier stages of this Bill, rather careful and what might be considered rather fastidious little definitions. The House will see in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 the appointment and tenure of members, a statement of how many members there shall be and, in sub-paragraph (3), a very rough guide as to the composition of the interests of the area within the Board's aegis. Subparagraph (3) gives an approximate outline of who shall he represented on the Board; but the purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to define a little more closely those interests which we feel should be represented as of right, if I can put it that way, on the Board. I think the noble and
522
learned Lord may well say that of course it would be in the mind of the Secretary of State that such interests should be represented on the Board, but, nevertheless, my Lords, we are not convinced that it is adequately provided for in subparagraph (3), and we would be very grateful for the views of the noble and learned Lord on this matter. We hope this Amendment is not unduly fastidious, but we should like the safeguard of a provision that such interests should be represented on the Board. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government view still remains that, however well intentioned is the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, it is not necessary to impose on the Secretary of State requirements such as those set out in the Amendment. When it is set up, the Board must take decisions on the problems that confront it based on an overall view of the whole area—decisions that are not biased towards one particular interest or another. The members of the Board will he appointed by the Secretary of State for the contributions that, as individuals, each can make to the deliberations of the Board. Members must not regard themselves as delegates of particular interests, or indeed be placed in the position of representing a particular interest, because if we started on that road a number of other interests would claim the right of representation and we should have an enormously large Board for what is, after all, a limited purpose.
The Welsh Tourist Board, agricultural, forestry and other interests will of course be free to submit names to the Secretary of State for consideration, and it is quite likely that one of the members will have experience of, for instance, the tourist industry. Indeed, I would think it inconceivable that the Board will not contain members with close links with agriculture in this area, in mid-Wales. But, with respect, I do not think it is necessary to allocate expressly a place on the Board to a representative of one particular interest, and so invite pressure from other interests of the kind that I have mentioned. Amendments to restrict the freedom of the Secretary of State to secure a membership of the Board which reflects the economic and

523
community interests of the area as a whole would not, I think, be helpful for the purposes that, across the hoard in the House, we have in mind in the case of this new institution, and accordingly I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that suggestion from my noble and learned friend. The sort of thing that he is laying himself open to by this Amendment is a request from, for example, the chamber of commerce of Newtown saying, " If the farmers can be represented on this Board as of right, why cannot we, who contribute more, possibly "—I do not know, but possibly contribute more—" to the economic prosperity of this particular region be similarly represented? Why should not we, the commercial and businessmen of Newtown, have a representative as of right on this Board?" As my noble and learned friend says, once you start this there is no end to it—and I could add other categories, all of whom would claim equality of right to representation. I think that in the appointment of public boards generally in this country we have steered a way which is fair to all the interests which are covered by such boards, and in view of our long history of success in these matters I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurances of my noble and learned friend.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, if I may first comment on the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I, too, think it is inconceivable that representatives of new towns, and particularly such a distinguished new town as Newtown, would not be on the Board. Nevertheless, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, did not think of joining us in a similar Amendment to see that a representative from Newtown was included on the Board as of right.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I gave the example of the chamber of commerce, not of Newtown.
Lord LYELL: I see. Then there might be a divergence of interest, but I should be grateful for further explanation after the debate is over. Nevertheless, I take the points which the noble and learned Lord raised. I agree with him that it is inconceivable that the interests which
524
we set out in subparagraphs (4) and (5) would not be represented. It was just that we would have been glad to see those interests with a statutory right to be represented on the Board. However, we take the noble and learned Lord's points that it might be unduly restrictive and that it would possibly be unsuitable to restrict the Secretary of State's discretion at this stage.
I would draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the comments made earlier by my noble friend Lord Elton that we are not dealing necessarily with a Board or even a Secretary of State that we see now; hat we are possibly setting up a Development Board which may well go on for 50 or 100 years. There may well be further pressures and an Assembly for Wales in the near future. Therefore the role of the Secretary of State may, or may not, become confused. And this is in the nearer future than we see it. However, in the light of the assurances, if I may so call them, that have been given, I beg leave to withdraw this particular Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 22, line 43, leave out from (" consult ") to end of line 46 and insert (" the Board ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to change the present requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Board before giving directions to the Board under Clause 7(6) to a requirement to consult with the Board itself. It also removes the discretion of the Secretary of State to dispense with consultations by giving directions in cases where 'such consultations are impracticable because of urgency.
The Government were urged in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Lyell, and they were supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. After giving the matter consideration, we have decided that what is proposed is practicable and sensible and, accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. In

525
fact, I think I have already said, earlier this afternoon as well as in Committee, why it was welcome and therefore it is enough to do the noble and learned Lord the courtesy of thanking him for meeting us in this way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The New Towns Code]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 38, line 19, leave out (" this paragraph ") and insert (" sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this again is a minor drafting Amendment which involves no change of substance. At this hour and in this climate I hope that your Lordships will accept that assurance from me and permit me merely to move the Amendment. If there is any intellectual curiosity still surviving, I will do my best to meet it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
5.23 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Melchett)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT GOSCHEN in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duties of Meat and Livestock Commission as regards consultation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 3, line 10, leave out (" and ").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F and also the Amendment to leave out Schedule 1. Before I come on to the substance of the Amendment might I be permitted to make one general obser-
526
vation. This is an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which normally is wholly uncontroversial, tidying up a lot of different points. As we knew on Second Reading this has now, in fact, become a Bill of some controversiality. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will realise that the Amendments that we on this side have put down are what we believe to be helpful Amendments. Some of them are put down in order to elicit information from the Government, some in order to make points which noble Lords on this side feel strongly about, and some in order to improve the Bill. In no way are they intended as wrecking Amendments. I hope that both noble Lords who will speak for the Government will approach this matter in the same way as we have tried to approach it. There are differences of view but these Amendments are not put down in order to countermand the controversiality; they are put down in order to improve the working of the Bill despite the controversiality.
All in the series of Amendments in my name refer to the Consumers Committee. Under the Agriculture Act 1967 there were set up three committees: the Production Committee, the Distribution Committee and the Consumers Committee, with all of which it is the duty of the Meat and Livestock Commission to consult. This procedure instituted the process of consultation with which we are all familiar. It has been realised for some time that both distributors and producers are sufficiently well organised to have made superfluous the continuation of the two committees on production and on distribution. I sympathise with the Government in producing tidying-up legislation which does away with any unnecessary committee.
The object of this Amendment is to do away with the Consumers Committee, which will be the third committee to have been dispensed with. The Government have wisely decided to do away with the other two committees; and, in the event of the Meat and Livestock Commission wishing to consult with the consumers, there is a proliferation of consumers' organisations with whom they could consult if necessary. I hope that the Government might see in this a way in which they might further tidy up the business of the Meat and Livestock Commission and I should be interested to

527
hear what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has to say.
Lord STRABOLGI: May I say in reply—and, I am sure, also on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Melchett—that we greatly appreciate the constructive attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am sure that we shall have an interesting and constructive Committee stage. I know well that the Amendments that noble Lords opposite have tabled have been put down sincerely and in this spirit and we will do our best, in company with them, to explore the different points that have been raised. The noble Earl has raised a very interesting point in the first of this series of Amendments in which the intention is to abolish the statutory Consumers Committee.
The proposals contained in the Bill are to improve the statutory consultation arrangements which were laid down by the Agriculture Act 1967 whereby the Meat and Livestock Commission must consult with meat and livestock producers, distributors and consumers where the interests of any of these classes of people may be affected by the Commission's activities. The proposed improved arrangement, result from a review made last year following general criticism of the arrangements as they applied to producer and distributor interests.
The Bill therefore proposes to replace the Production and Distribution Committees by arrangements for direct statutory consultation with those organisations representing the interests of these two groups. Here I agree with the noble Lord that one does not want a Committee set up just for the sake of setting up a Committee. If possible, it is probably better to have direct talks in these cases. But because there was no criticism of the consumer consultation arrangements no alterations have been proposed and consumers' interests would therefore continue to be statutorily consulted through the Consumer Committee. These Amendments would however remove all the provisions for consumer consultation and, unlike the arrangements proposed for producers and distributors, would not provide any alternative procedures. It is surely of continuing importance that consumer interests should be fully taken into account by the Meat and Livestock Commission whose duties of course are
528
concerned with the whole range of activities from livestock production right through to retail selling.
May I draw the Committee's attention to the Commission's activities affecting consumers, such as their activities on meat promotion and their encouragement of uniform systems of clear labelling of meat at the retail end, to give only two examples. But I can assure the Committee that of course there are many more. It is right therefore in the Government's view that consumers' interests should continue to be provided for by Statute. I do not think that there can be any disagreement about this.
It may be however the intention that the arrangements for consumer consultation should be put on the same footing as those proposed in the Bill for producers and distributors. In subsection (3) of Clause 3 the Committee will see that there is a list of classes of persons specified for the purpose of subsection (2) whereby Ministers may designate Organisations to be consulted. Of course this list does not include consumers and it would be necessary, if the interests of consumers were to be dealt with in the same way as producers and distributors, for the list of " classes of persons to be extended.
However, as I have attempted to explain, the present arrangements for consumer consultation have been examined and have been found to be working to the satisfaction of both the consumers' interests and the Commission. It is not therefore necessary, I submit, to make any alteration to these arrangements, and while I am very glad that the noble Earl put down these Amendments (because it has enabled me to explain the whole policy in regard to the consumers in this clause), I am afraid that the Government could not accept them.
Earl FERRERS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for giving that answer and explaining the reasons why the Government feel that they could not accept these Amendments. The harmony of the occasion is such that I would not feel so strongly as to wish to take the point any further. It merely seemed to me that when disposing of two committees, if we disposed of the third committee as well this would have tidied the whole thing up. I would have preferred

529
to see the list to which the noble Lord referred on page 4 of the Bill extended. I appreciate that the noble Lord finds the Committee is doing a reasonable job of work and the last thing I would wish to do would he to undermine the relationship between consumers and organisations which is very important. In view of that, and the explanation which the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
Lord BALERNO,Lord BALERNO, moved Amendment No. 1:
Insert the following new clause:
Aquaculture deemed to be Agriculture
.—(1) Aquaculture shall, for all purposes, he deemed to be part of Agriculture and all enactments applying to Agriculture shall, as appropriate, apply to Aquaculture.
(2) Aquaculture is the culture and the harvesting of animals and plants in water. '
The noble Lord said: I make no apology to the Committee for putting down this Amendment to an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I agree that it is a major Amendment and that I am hut a Back-Bencher. But in another place Back-Benchers have produced a series of major amendments to this very Bill which the Government have accepted. The Amendment I am moving is to further the industry of fish farming, an industry which, if encouraged, can make a tremendous contribution to the food supply for this country.
Nine years ago the Secretary of State for Scotland set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Cameron, a Senator of' the College of Justice,
" to review the law governing methods of sea fishing in Scotland…and the cost and effectiveness of alternative methods."
The Report of the Committee, known as the Cameron Report, was presented to Parliament in 1970. An exhaustive study was made of alternative methods. and of these the Committee reported in paragraph 227:
" Of all the developments and impending developments in fisheries, the one which promises to bring about, in the long term the most radical change, is fish cultivation or farming. Fish is the
530
only source of food which is still obtained mainly by the exploitation of naturally occurring stocks of wild creatures, but, as the human population increases, and its standards of lining rise, the demand for fish grows and it seems certain must ultimately exceed the reproductive capacity of the wild stocks."
We have now just about reached that point.
Lord Cameron, who is one of the most eminent and forthright of the Senators of the College of Justice, the Supreme Court in Scotland, says of fish farming (in paragraph 240):
" The obstacles and problems are not all, however, of an economic or scientific nature. The development poses a number of legal questions."
Four subsequent paragraphs expand at length on these legal constraints. And the recommendations include (on page 172, paragraph 4d):
" Provision should be made in a new statute for the development of fish farming."
It is more than six years since those words were penned. They encouraged many enterprising persons in Scotland to study and to embark on various enterprises with various species. Some have gone bankrupt, others have Prospered. The reason why many went bankrupt was because of the legal constraints. Those who prospered have done so in no small measure because of the wile and the guile by which they have overcome these legal difficulties and their concomitant of petty bureaucracy.
We had a notable debate last year in this house initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. We had hoped that, as a result, the Government would shortly introduce a fish farming Bill. And to help them to do so, a draft Bill has been drawn up by the fish farming interests in England which has the backing of the Fish Farming Association of Scotland. But it has recently dawned upon us that the Government have no intention whatsoever to introduce such a Bill and that the grounds for inaction are that there exist " no legal constraints ". With respect, nothing could be further from the truth. In 1970 the Cameron Report gave a number of these legal constraints and several more have been encountered since then. My purpose and that of the noble Baroness in putting down this Amendment is to bring this matter to a head. While the Amendment will

531
not remove all these legal constraints, it will certainly go quite a long way towards that.
Let me give your Lordships one or two examples of how, if this Amendment is carried, it will help the fish farming industry. Take rating. In England and Wales the law as presently interpreted means that fish fall within the definition of " livestock " under the Rating Act 1971; but in Scotland that same Act is interpreted in the sense that if you are farming fish you are not exempt from rating. It is more than likely that before long there will be an appeal from the valuation courts and the tribunal, and the decision will probably be overturned so far as England is concerned. Of course, it will be said that the Layfield Report recommends on the subject of derating of agricultural subjects; that is, land and buildings. But I think it is very questionable whether in the foreseeable future action will be taken to this effect, and it will be taken only over the dead bodies of a large number of your Lordships.
A second point which would be quite helpful concerns protection against predators. The chief predators to a fish farmer are seals, herons and oyster catchers. They are all protected, and the farmer who takes counter-action is in grave danger of prosecution. Thirdly, as regards the measures governing hunted fish—that is, ordinary traditional fishing—various measures have been put forward to control the sale of these fish at certain seasons of the year, and so on. I must give credit to the Government for having inserted in the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill a useful little clause allowing salmon from a fish farm to be sold out of season. That is one good thing to be placed to the Government's credit.
Another point concerns ownership. If this Amendment is passed, the fish farmer would get some protection against theft and criminal damage, which he does not get at the present time. Such protection would come automatically if he were part of agriculture. A slightly more difficult subject, perhaps, is disease; but I rather think that the machinery which the Government have for the control of disease by Order could apply equally to diseases affecting fish.
To turn now to Government grants,
532
not an unimportant subject, in the United Kingdom Government grants are available to fish farmers only in Northern Ireland and in the areas of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If this Amendment is passed fish farming would be eligible for Government grants. In this connection I should like to refer to a very important point. It is that the EEC grants are made for marine fish farming and they come under the heading of agriculture, so that grants from the EEC are part of agriculture. Therefore to acquire these grants, if for no other reason, I feel it is desirable for this Amendment to be passed by your Lordships.
I should like to refer now to the subject of pollution control—and not just simple trade effluent but also actions which affect salinity, temperature and the amount of oxygen in the water. Protection would be afforded to the fish farmer, if he were part of agriculture. Perhaps one of the worst things that can happen to a fish farmer is the introduction of nitrates into water, which cause the growth of a rather obnoxious weed called flannel weed.
I turn now to the subject of licences for goods vehicles, over which fish farmers would get the same preferential treatment as agriculturists get if they were treated as being part of agriculture. That would certainly be a further inducement for them. As regards capital allowances, the Inland Revenue have stated that fish farming is not normally regarded as being capable of being set against tax under the Capital Allowances Act 1968. A small and perhaps rather comic point, but one that is not unimportant, concerns the Guard Dogs Act 1975. Agricultural land is exempt from guard dogs legislation, but fish farming is not clearly defined in this respect. One county council has taken the view that fish farming is not exempt. In both Scotland and England the National Farmers' Unions have already accepted that fish farming is an integral part of agriculture. In England that is already the position and in the case of Scotland it will become the position. The NFUs have sections in their organisations already prepared. Perhaps I might tell you that we have not acted more quickly in Scotland because the Scottish fish farmers felt that the fee charged for joining the NFU in Scotland was rather too high. Had it not been

533
for that they might have been incorporated before now.
One point concerning Scotland in particular will interest your Lordships; namely, that Scotland has a longer coastline than that of the whole of the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America. The potentialities are tremendous. If your Lordships support this Amendment you will give encouragement and help to what may well grow into a most important industry, both as regards imports and as regards providing food for the people, because certain kinds of fish, properly farmed, can compete with the broiler industry—and look how the broiler industry has prospered and fed the country during the last 20 years!
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Balerno. It is deceivingly simple in form, but very comprehensive. Your Lordships may have noticed that since I moved a Motion on fish farming, almost a year ago now, think, it has become quite a popular abject in the Press and on television, both BBC and ITV. I think it has won its place in the public's mind because of its real merits.
I originally moved my Motion because I was interested in helping to increase protein production for the world in general, and especially for the starving populations of the world. But I would urge it now as a real necessity for our own sake, because if your Lordships look around the world at the moment it is most disturbed. Whether or not we are on the precipice of another war, I do not know. But it would give us a feeling of safety if in this country we had at least increased our fish farming production, and felt more self-sufficient in that regard. That is why we have moved this Amendment. Compared with other countries, fish farming in this country has been so neglected, both by this Government and by previous ones, that it is really rather disgraceful.
We have put this Amendment at the end of Clause 4 because paragraph (5) on page 5 states:
" In this section agriculture' includes horticulture and forestry."
There is not a single word about fish. Yet
534
it really is an urgent necessity that we should remove the relatively small obstacles—although they are serious for the people concerned—which stand in the way of our present fish farming industry. I know that, very probably, there will be a plea from the Government that this would entail expenditure, and we cannot afford any new expenditure at the present time. But I should like to draw their attention to the fact that our import of fish costs us £2 million a year, and a very small proportion of this sum to assist fish farmers would also help to dispose of the cost of our import of fish.
We shall, of course, have to encourage our housewives to take to fish eating. Unfortunately, at the present moment, we are not a very fish eating population and we shall have to change that. That can be done. If your Lordships were my age—some of you are—you would remember that we had to get used to something called snoek which, when I think about it, still makes me feel rather sick: and there was also Lord WooIton's pie which, while not bad, was rather dull. I do not think it would be impossible to get the housewife to take a new look at the products of a new fish industry.
In making this effort to put fish farming on a proper basis, we shall be backing up our own sea-going fishing industry which at the present moment is going through very hard times. We shall help to produce fish for conservation and so on. It is a little optimistic to suggest that seafaring sailors should take to fish farming on land; belonging to a seafaring family myself, I do not see that happening. Nevertheless, in any endeavour we make in fish farming we should work in conjunction with our sea-going fishing industry and not feel that we are trying to do something against them. In encouraging fish farming, we shall also be coming into line with the EEC's recent Directives and reports on fish farming. They are very interested in this subject and have a great many propositions which would be helpful to us. If, for instance, today we take this step to bring our fish farming under our agricultural umbrella, we shall only be doing what is already being done all over Europe. In due course we shall probably have to do it, so we may as well do it now.
I want to appeal to the Front Bench opposite. This is not a Party matter.

535
No doubt there are difficulties or defects in the Amendment which we have put forward, but we are only too willing to alter it, to improve it or to do anything which the Government may suggest. But I appeal to them for their sympathy in what we are trying to do. I also think—and I believe we have enough humour for me to be able to say this—that if there were a General Election in the near future they would not lose any votes by helping in this matter. Therefore, I ask the Government to have a look at this Amendment which could quite easily be inserted in this place, and which would enormously help those people who have been brave enough to embark on this industry, some of whom are doing extraordinarily well and helping with our export drive, especially on the crustacean side. If the Government would just wave a wand and help us in this way, it would rebound greatly to their benefit and we should be smoothing the path of those who do not so much go down to the sea in ships but have brought the products of the sea back on to the land.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I should very much like to support this Amendment. On Second Reading, we had a great discussion as to whether or not one should declare an interest. In this case, I certainly have an interest to declare in that I grow and fatten approximately 5,000 trout every year and I think I know a little about the subject. On the other hand, I do not know anything about sea fish farming, but the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has informed us with great clarity on that subject.
What I should like to do is start with one or two facts about trout. If you put one and a half tons of food into trout, under reasonable conditions you will get one ton of trout in return. Under very specialised conditions, this factor has been reduced quite considerably and is far better than the broiler poultry industry. The eatable proportion of trout, or of most fish for that matter, is higher than most warm blooded providers of protein, and the cost of trout at a fishmonger has not escalated in nearly the same way as that of sea fish.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, made a point which is very well worth underlining; that is, the reproductive capacity of wild fish. In the wild, the brown trout
536
—and I ask your Lordships to remember that the farm trout is the rainbow trout, because that does not breed properly in the wild in this country—will produce between one and a half and three adult trout per spawning. The moment you get to artificially stripping a fish, that hatching and breeding ratio goes up to around 60 or 70 per cent. So, first, it is very easy to produce them: secondly, they are very easy to fatten and, thirdly, they produce very palatable food for the housewife.
In the United States of America—I believe I am right in saying this, but I stand open to correction—just below the dam which collapsed the other day in the Snake River, there was the biggest concentration of trout farms in the world. The Americans are no further advanced than we are in the ability to grow and produce trout. But what they are much further advanced in is the ability to sell them. They are advertised on television as a cheap quality food. They come to the housewife gutted and packed, and with little sachets in the box. If you want to prepare almonded trout, the almonds come in the box from the grocer, who gets them straight from the fish farm. If you want to produce trout with herbs, the herbs arrive and you can buy trout with herbs in the fishmongers.
This goes to show what could be done and backs up what my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley said about persuading, not making, the housewife realise that fish is good to eat. Certainly in the United States of America they have large numbers of freshwater crayfish farms. Again, perhaps this is a luxury food because crayfish are slow growers which go to the luxury end of the market. One young man whom I know personally is experimenting with this kind of fish farming in England. He is using imported French stock and is very hopeful that it will provide a new source of food for admittedly the luxury end of the market. The Russians claim that they are doing this in Lithuania, but there are very few details available.
The protection of predators has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. To my cost I know that the worst predators are not herons, or oyster catchers, for they do not come, or otters. They are two-legged predators who come

537
with nets in the night and have difficulty in differentiating between what belongs to me and what belongs to them. If you have taken a long time to grow fish over which you have taken care and trouble and in which you have invested money, it is extremely tiresome if someone else comes and removes them. Then you do not have the protection of the full rigours of the law, however helpful and co-operative the police may be.
There are two further points that I should like to make. The first is that there is a great deal of doubt about whether or not you need planning permission for the fish farm buildings—your stews and your hatcheries. This Amendment, if accepted, will clear up the doubt once and for all. My second point, a fundamentally important issue which may not come strictly within this Amendment, is that if the local water authority—here I should like to pay public tribute to the help which the Thames Water Authority have given to me in the last day or so—order you to destroy your fish because of something like ulcerated dermal necrosis, which is the disease which has had devastating effects on the salmon in the rivers of the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no compensation. If no compensation is payable, this will make very much more likely the illegal hiding of the fact that a fish farmer has ulcerated dermal necrosis among his stock. If that happens, it means that this very frightening and almost always lethal disease will be much more difficult to contain and it is in everybody's interest that it should be contained. It is in the interests of the fish farmer to get his stock destroyed as opposed to thinking that he might get away with it and then receiving no compensation when his stock has to be slaughtered.
This is one of the most exciting new projects that is taking place and we have the ability to carry it out. We have some very good fish scientists and many people are willing to risk their money. Of course, risk is involved, but what those of us who are fish farmers—I am a fish farmer in a very small way—would like to say is that we should have the same conditions of help which the agricultural industry receives, so that we also can produce food for the housewife. After all, this is what all agriculture is about.
538
One final point is that it seems to me to be quite reasonable that some distinction should be made between fish produced for sporting interests and fish produced for food interests. I see no reason why the sporting interests should be given tax relief, but I see a very strong reason for giving tax relief to the food producing interests. I should have thought that this could be done very simply by the council showing at the end of the year how many fish have been sold to sporting interests and how many fish have been sold to the restaurant trade. I hope that the Government will look with great sympathy at this Amendment and, if it is not properly drafted, that they will produce their own draft at Report stage.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I shall be very brief. My noble friend the Minister may think that there is something rather " fishy " about this Amendment if all the speeches in favour of it happen to come from the other side. Unlike the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, I ought to declare that I have no interest in fish farming. I do not own a fish farm, nor do I own any shares in Mac Fisheries. However, I have a personal interest in fish for I do not care to eat meat any more frequently than I can help. I eat meat only on those occasions when my wife compels me to do so, but I like fish and live almost entirely upon it. I think that everybody in the medical profession will tell you that fish provides a nutrative diet and that the consumption of it should be encouraged.
However, in the near future there is going to be a shortage of fish. We have clearly in our minds the memory of the cod war and in a few months time there will be the threat of every country expanding its fishery preserves to 200 miles off its coast. While in recent months our catches of fish have gone down considerably, they are likely to go down still further in the months to come. We have seen the demise of the homely fish and chip shop in many of our High Streets. Fish has become almost unobtainable at a price which ordinary people can afford to pay. Therefore, if our catches from the sea are to be diminished and if there is a scientific and industrial possibility of producing fish off our own shores or in our estuaries, then surely—I will not exaggerate by. saying as a matter of

539
national preservation in the interests of having a complete diet for our people, we should do all that we possibly can to encourage this relatively new industry of fish farming.
Such fish farms as have been established have been brought into existence sometimes by individuals trading and producing fish in a smallish way. On the other hand, there are one or two larger combines who have interested themselves in fish farming, and I should like to see some of the great food producing combines taking an interest in this new industry. It has enormous possibilities. Side by side with that, in the years to come there will be a growing demand from the community for fish, but there will be a reducing supply of fish from the sea. If, therefore, we have an alternative method of producing fish by our own efforts, for goodness sake let us do so!
I do not know what the attitude of the Government is likely to be, nor do I know what scientific or financial arguments have been put forward by the Ministry, but as a matter of common sense it seems to me that we should do all that we possibly can to foster and increase the productivity of this new industry.
6.9 p.m.
Lord VERNON: I should like, very briefly, to support my noble friend Lord Balerno in his Amendment. In doing so, I want to make one point on the marine fish farming side. My noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley said, quite correctly I think, that we do not farm fish on the same scale as certain other countries.
However, what we have done in this country and what is being done, especially by the White Fish Authority, is a great deal of research. More research has been put into fish farming in this country than has been put into it by the other EEC countries with whom we are co-operating. As a result of this research the fish farming industry has now reached a point where commercial production is possible. It has in fact started and within a few years it is likely that many thousands of tons of farmed salmon, farmed turbot and possibly other fish will be forthcoming, which will be a very significant addition to our diet—to the diet of a nation which has to import 50 per cent. of all its food. For these reasons I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this Amend-
540
ment because it is only fair to these people who have risked so much that they should not now be hampered by a law which is a complete anachronism.
Lord HOY: I do not want altogether to oppose this Amendment but I think we must take cognisance of what in fact this Bill does. It is the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and if one looks at the Explanatory Memorandum one sees that Clause 4,
."…enables the Minister to pay grants towards the costs of maintaining a standardised system of proficiency testing in agriculture in England and Wales."
That is what the clause sets out to do. We arc then faced with an Amendment—and I am not objecting to the Amendment. nor to its getting publicity—tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, a very old friend of mine, and by the noble Baroness. Lady Emmet, another very old friend. I do not like to find myself in this position, but if anyone in this Committee or in another place thinks that one can take an Agriculture Bill and simply insert an Amendment into it and convert it into a Bill to deal with the fisheries industry I think that is going a little too far. It cannot be done with an Amendment of this kind.
When people talk to me about research in this industry, I do not think there is any other country in the world which has a better record in research than the British Ministry of Agriculture. Indeed, I have spent many hours at Lowestoft and elsewhere and have found there devoted people doing a remarkable job of work which was the admiration of every other fishing country in the world. We are not behind in that respect. So when we seek to deal with this Amendment it is no criticism of the experts who are employed in this industry.
En Russia they have a very simple test and they go in for this type of fish production on a big scale. I cannot remember the last figure, but I clearly remember that when was in Russia a few years ago the fishing industry provided certainly not less than 20 per cent. of the total protein contribution of the whole of Russia. So they looked upon it as a very important industry indeed. said to the Minister: " How do you carry out this process of fish farming?" " Well," he said, " it is not as simple as some people think.

541
When I make my proposition to the Government in Russia I have to prove to them that every acre I take up for fish farming will give a return to the country of certainly not less than that of an acre which has been left for agriculture. " When we have a Bill of this kind, no matter how much we may agree that there should be an increase in fish production I think we are going too far if we believe that we can simply insert an Amendment in an Agriculture Bill in order to produce a fishing policy.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. I just want to remind him that it has been proved that in fish farming one can produce more protein per acre than one can by agricultural livestock.
Lord HOY: I would not disagree with that, but the noble Baroness had better convince her agricultural colleagues. All I am saying is that whether she proves it or not or whether it can be asserted or not, I am suggesting that we cannot take an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and convert it into a Bill for fish production. So I say humbly to my noble friends that on the whole I do not disagree with fish farming. Indeed, it was a long time ago when I was introduced to it, because I once had the great pleasure of visiting Israel and I saw their carp production. They were denied the seas round about them, but by fish farming they created an industry second to none in Europe. That convinced me of its value. This was done as a deliberate policy, not just a simple Amendment to a Bill.
So I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that I shall be one of their supporters in regard to fish farming in this country. I think it has a considerable contribution to make but I believe we shall lose the value of it if we think we can simply insert a little Amendment in an agricultural Bill in order to get what we want. I am sure that they do not believe it and they know that I do not believe it, and if we come to the conclusion that we are not going to hoodwink each other we can then embark on a programme of getting the Government—whatever Government—to accept the fish industry, which is a particular agricultural
542
industry, into our economy, because I think it can make a remarkable contribution.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Before my noble friend sits down I should like him to tell us something. He is trying to suggest that it would be an unnatural marriage if we tried to marry agriculture with fishery. Why then was it that he was such a distinguished Minister in what used to he called the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries? To my mind the marriage is a natural one.
Lord HOY: With all due respect to my noble friend, in the whole of my career I never sought to differentiate between fish and chips.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to add my voice from this Front Bench in support of my noble friends Lord Balerno and Lady Emmet of Amberley who have so ably moved the Amendment before your Lordships. In doing so I would say at the same time to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that he may criticise the Amendment in the way he has done and say that the Bill is purely concerned with minor matters of agriculture, but this is a Bill which concerns a major matter—an alteration of the structure of the landlord and tenant system in Part II of the Bill.
Lord HOY: That has nothing to do with this.
Lord SANDYS: It has everything to do with any criticism.
Lord HOY: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am bound to point out to him that Part II has absolutely nothing to do with the Part we are now discussing.
Lord SANDYS: I entirely agree with the noble Lord: it has nothing to do with it. But I am criticising the noble Lord for saying that the Bill is a minor one concerning small agricultural provisions.
Let us now turn our attention to a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Balerno in regard to grants, which I believe to be an important factor. Earlier this afternoon when we were discussing the rural development of Wales the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned

543
that he considered it unfortunate that the inputs and outputs in funds from this country to the EEC and the funds returning from the EEC to this country in terms of rural development, et cetera, were disproportionate. I think we can help him in this regard because. thanks to both the farm and horticultural development schemes, which we all welcome from this side of the Committee, and the changes under the farm capital grant scheme, great simplification has been made.
This is a particularly important factor because British farmers at the end of 1974, had had merely 149 plans approved, which compares most unfavourably with those of our partners in the EEC. May I mention to your Lordships that 4,000 plans were approved in Denmark, no fewer than 7,600 in Germany, 1,200 in Ireland and 4,200 in the Netherlands; so the alteration in the grant structure under the horticulture development scheme has been most welcome.
Only a few days ago the European Communities Commission published details of EEC grants for agricultural projects. In that list, which I have before me at the moment, are no fewer than 101 projects, totalling £7,015,732: it is significant that no fewer than 73 of these 101 projects are concerned with the fishing industry. Surely, this in itself should indicate the degree of support which the fishing industry needs, and by implication the fishing industry will greatly benefit from an alteration suggested by my noble friends in their Amendment to the Bill.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Just before the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replies, in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, with regard to what he said about the Russian Ministry of Fisheries. there was a point on which I should like to comment. In an area 60 ft. by 20 ft. it is possible with an input of 3,000 lbs. of fish food to produce 1,000 lbs. of pure edible protein for the human race: so that compares very favourably indeed with either chickens or animals, beef and milk.
Lord HOY: I do not want to interrupt again, nor to intervene, but when one is continually being referred to, one is bound to say one or two words in reply. I feel bound to say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that if you are going in for
544
fish farming of this kind, you will have a financial input which is bigger than I would think is dealt with in a purely agricultural industry. I was not objecting to fish farming: I supported it. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to try to take fish farming and convert it into part of the agricultural industry.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who was speaking from the Front Bench when he tried to distort a little of what is to happen later, the proposition we would be faced with later with regard to farming and, indeed to inheritance, has absolutely nothing to do with fishing. Indeed, on fishing, this one has no contribution to make to the economic position of the fishing industry. This is a new concept of producing fish for our needs in this country, and if we do not recognise that, then we do not know the problem which confronts us tonight. I think I have this in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno: we know what we want to seek to achieve. All I am saying is that while we want to achieve this one thing in common, I do not think that this Bill is the Bill through which it can be done. I am saying no more than that. I realise the problem, and I appreciate what we would do. I have argued before on this. A long time ago in another place, I was trying to argue for fish farming in this country because I thought it had a contribution to make to our economic wellbeing in Britain. I have never deserted that point of view. But I do not want to get it mixed up in this Bill with agriculture, because even if agriculture loses, I do not want to have the fish industry lose along with it.
Lord STRABOLGI: We have had a most interesting debate, and I think we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, for putting down this Amendment. I think they have made this subject very much their own. Indeed, whenever I meet her outside the Chamber—which I am glad to say is fairly frequently—the noble Baroness always mentions the question of fish farming. In fact, I believe she mentions it to other members of the Government far more senior than myself when she meets them at parties.
But I must, however, refute the suggestion, in the friendliest possible way,

545
of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, that the Government somehow arc not interested in this and do not intend to do anything about it. I am grateful for this opportunity to emphasise the awareness of the Government of the concern of certain sections of the fish farming industry that, in some respects, they are not treated in the same way as agriculture. It is precisely this concern that prompted the Government to establish, with fish farming and associated interests, a Working Group to examine in depth the problems of those undertaking fish farming in this country. This Working Group was set up in the Department. Following a series of meetings, the Ministry produced a report and circulated it last February, inviting the views of the fish farmers. I am sorry to say that these views have not yet been received, perhaps for good reasons; I do not know. But it is hoped that these will be available in the not-too-distant future. I can recommend this report to those of your Lordships who may not have seen it. I will see that a copy of it is put in the Library and is made available in the Printed Paper Office, because it really does go in some detail into some of the problems which are involved.
As the report made clear, there are a number of issues which might he dealt with in the context of fisheries legislation, where this subject really belongs. Here, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hoy that it cannot really be fitted into this Bill, for the reasons which he has put forward. My noble friend also mentioned the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of which he was a distinguished member, is divided up into different, sections; there is a fishing section and agricultural sections. I did not know this because I have come fairly recently to this subject as a spokesman from this Box. But I cross-examined the Department closely this morning on this matter and they told me that in no case do you ever put into an agriculture Bill something about fishing, either freshwater fishing, sea fishing, oysters, mussels, or anything else. You do not put it into an agriculture Bill; it has its own Bill.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: If the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will allow me to say so, that is a great pity,
546
because in Europe fish is considered under the heading of agriculture, and that is what we need in this country.
Lord STRABOLGI: That may be so. On the other hand, it does not prevent us from bringing in our own legislation when the time comes. At this point. I must say we will consider this legislation when we have gone into and solved the difficult problems involved. Some of these matters include subjects such as the ability to take farmed salmon in the close season and to sell such creatures even if they do not meet the required size limits applicable to wild salmon, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, has been introduced already into Scottish legislation, but not yet into legislation in this country.
In discussion, fish farmers raised a wide variety of points where they felt themselves to be at a disadvantage, for example, on such issues as planning, some taxation points, and rating. Noble Lords will be aware of the recently published report on local government finance. Certain recommendations were made on the future of rating and, although the implementation of the Layfield Report is still a matter for consideration, it is of interest to note that the introduction of rating for agriculture is recommended.
As will be clear to your Lordships, fish farming issues relate to activities across a very wide spectrum of Government. For example, there is the question of theft, and here, of course, the Home Office is involved. There is some uncertainty about protection under the law for stocks of farmed fish and the installations in which they might be reared. I understand that the Theft Act will give certain protection, but there are two areas of uncertainty relating to fish farming in the sea. The first of these is where shellfish are reared on ropes suspended from rafts or buoys. The property in shellfish on ropes is doubtful, because in these circumstances the shellfish, which are wild animals, do not appear to have been reduced into possession for the purposes of the Theft Act and do not enjoy the protection afforded by the Sea Fisheries and Shellfish Act to shellfish in a several fishery or in a private oyster bed. The second doubt arises where fish are kept within a sealed inlet or creek of the sea. It can be argued that they have not been reduced into

547
possession in the same way as those kept in cages. These points are some of many which have to be taken into account in framing the legislation.
I should perhaps explain that in the light of the Government's consideration of these issues we are convinced that such constraints on fish farming as exist do not amount to a major limitation upon the expansion of this activity in its various forms. In the last decade or so the number of freshwater fish farms in the United Kingdom has quadrupled, and there is every reason to believe that the expansion of this activity is continuing apace. The problems arise more in relation to the research and development and economic fields. This is why the Government continue to place major emphasis on spending available funds in the attempt to deal with these problems. I am sure noble Lords will be glad to know that in the financial estimates for the current year there is provision for something over fl million annually to meet the cost of research and development work connected with fish farming activities. I hope that this is proof of the seriousness with which the Government take this matter and the great interest which they take in it. We wish to provide a sound research and development base to enable fish farmers to move forward, because we are just as aware of the great potential of this aspect as are noble Lords who have spoken.
I should like to take this opportunity of confirming what we have made clear on a number of occasions. We shall consider what might be included in fisheries legislation when that proves possible. In the meantime, I cannot accept the clause, for the reasons which I have given, but nevertheless I welcome the opportunity we have had once again to discuss this important developing new industry which, as I say, has great potential.
Lord BURTON: I really feel that the Government are splitting hairs in this matter, because in the crofting legislation, which, after all, is an agricultural matter, the keeping of bees is included. If you can keep wild bees, why cannot you keep tame fish, and put it into an agriculture Bill.
Lord HOY: Can the noble Lord tell me what is a tied fish?
Lord STRABOLGI: Well, bees are not fish. I think a. great deal of the arguments seem to rest on drawing an analogy with agriculture. We do not think that this should be the approach. Within the fisheries context the question of further assistance to fish farmers should, I submit, be decided on its own merits. If I may sum up, the first point is this; that we have produced the report; this has been sent to the industry for their comments, and their comments are still awaited. As soon as these comments have been received, we will work on them and work towards considering legislation based on them, when we have ironed out the problems involved. In the meantime, we are giving £1 million a year towards Further research and development. We treat this with the greatest seriousness and sense of urgency. But I cannot accept the Amendment, for the mainly legal reasons which have been expressed today.
Lord BALERNO: May I deal with one or two of the points which have been made on the other side of the House. I did not altogether comprehend the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who tried to link this new clause with the existing Clause 4. It has nothing to do with Clause 4. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, and I thought it convenient to put it in at that point. It might have been put in anywhere else. This is a miscellaneous Bill. You do not expect things in a miscellaneous Bill to come in one after another in orderly sequence; there are bound to be sharp differences between one clause and another. That is the essence of a miscellaneous Bill.
Production per acre has been very well dealt with. What interested me was how many years ago it was that Lord Hoy saw what he saw and said what he said. That all happened so many years ago, and not a thing has been done as a result of what lie saw and said a long time ago.
Lord HOY: We could not convince the Tories.
Lord BALERNO: May I deal with the question of theft, raised by Lord Strabolgi. I would refer him to the Cameron Report which deals with that matter particularly, and with what would constitute theft on a fish farm. If he will study that, he will see that it will be of great advantage to have fish farming—cages in the sea, which

549
is what are referred to—in as part of agriculture.
The fact that fish farms have quadrupled is a sign of the ingenuity of the people who are fish farming, and it does not take account of those fish farmers who have gone bankrupt because of these constraints and because of the bureaucracy attaching to it. When the time comes, was the refrain of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, " when the time comes; when the time comes ". I suggest to the noble Lord that if this Amendment is passed—and I am sure it is going to be passed today—it is a fine holding operation, giving the Government time to get their own fish farming Bill into order. I shall be the first to support it, but I want to see the colour of their words. I think that the way to poke them up into doing something about fish farming, and not perpetually giving us honeyed words from the Front Bench on the other side, is to pass this Amendment now, giving them time to get on and put tip a proper fish farming Bill. I agree this Amendment is not perfect, but what is not perfect but goes half way is always rather useful. At the present time, for so many fish farmers, it is a case of hope deferred making the heart sink. We will encourage the fish farmers of Great Britain if we agree to this Amendment now.
Earl FERRERS: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say one thing. I personally sympathise a very great deal with what he has said. I sympathise with the fact that the fish farming industry is an up and coming industry and the fact that it has, as it were, no home, but I feel that it is like a child taking part in musical bumps—whenever the music stops all the chairs have gone, and nobody wants to hold this particular baby. With regard to my noble friend's Amendment I would say that certainly nobody disputes the value of fish farming. Nobody disputes the fact that it ought to be encouraged. Nobody disputes the fact that it has a great part to play. My only hesitation is the fact that the particular Amendment which we are going to consider could produce legal complications and could produce difficulty once it becomes law.
I have absolutely no doubt that that would be the last thing that my noble
550
friend would wish, and I wonder whether it would not be possible, between now and Report stage, for the Government to see whether there is any way in which they could accommodate the views of my noble friends behind me, because we do not want to put something into the Bill which could produce complications. The noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, said that there could he some difficulties. If the noble Lord were prepared to go hack to his officials and see whether there is any way in which we could accommodate at least some of the views of my noble friend, I should have thought that this might be extremely helpful. The one thing we want to do is get it right. I see my noble friend's argument that if we do not do something now nothing will ever be done. We want something to be done. If the noble Lord could help over that, I should have thought that this might be a more constructive line.
Lord STRABOLGI: Certainly I welcome the constructive attitude of the noble Earl. We have taken full note of what has been said in this debate but I cannot give any undertaking, I am afraid. that a redrafted Amendment. or some other Amendment to do with fish farming, could be put in it at a later stage in the Bill. I am afraid I cannot do that because. as has been said very strongly by my noble friend Lord Hoy and others, this cannot be put into this particular Bill.
As a subject we are very much apprised of its importance. If I may say so with great respect to the fish farming industry, I hope that out of this debate, and as a result of it, they will answer the various questions they have been asked in the report. That should be the first step. They should get in touch with the Department, let them have the different answers, and then we can get on with considering legislation. At the moment the ball is in the court of the fish farming industry. We have taken full account of what has been said in this debate, and I hope that matters will now proceed with great urgency.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Might I ask the noble Lord how many times he has written to these people, and how many have not answered?
Lord STRABOLGI: As I said in my speech, a report was produced by February in this year and that was sent to the fish farming industry. There are about half a dozen associations. They were sent copies of this report and asked if they would comment on some of the various points raised in it. We are still awaiting them. It is not my function to write to these organisations.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Why not?
Lord STRABOLGI: Just a moment. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, this is done by the Department. The Department have been in touch, and keep in close touch, with these associations, but they have not yet had the answers. I hope, as a result of the debate, that these answers will come along fairly soon.
Lord BALERNO: I would dispute the phrase " the ball is in the fish farmers' court ". With the amount of " bumf " that the fish farmers have put up and circulated round about, and particularly the conferences and seminars and colloquia that have been held, many of which the civil servants have attended, I think it is ridiculous to say that the ball is in the fish farmers' court. Furthermore, there may be a few questionnaires which they have not answered but we have to remember that an association of fish farmers is not altogether unlike an association of trade unions, and it takes a little time to give a reply to a questionnaire. I am afraid that I cannot possibly agree to withdraw the Amendment, as the noble Lord suggests. What I would say is that if the Committee decided to pass this Amendment, I think that the noble Baroness and I would be willing to consider any Amendments to that Amendment at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord LEATH ERLAND: Can my noble friend clarify my mind on one point in his speech? He said that £1 million was being devoted to research. Was any of that devoted to fish that are caught in the wild or was it all devoted to fish farming?
Lord STRABOLGI: It was devoted to fish farming, and a great deal of it to marine fish farming, which we think is one of the great potentials for this. May I say
552
in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that there is not a trade union involved in the organisations. If there had been perhaps we could have had an answer. These organisations are not small ones. There is the National Farmers' Union: the fish farming section of the National Farmers' Union; the Salmon and Trout Association; the Fisheries Organisation Society; the British Trout Farmers' Association; the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. They are quite substantial bodies. I do not blame them in any way for not replying. They are probably studying the matter. All I am trying to say is that we cannot get on until they do.
Lord JANNER: May I intervene for one moment. I have deep sympathy with those who want to see fish farming improved in our country. I have seen it elsewhere, and I can assure the Committee that the experiment in the one country in particular which I happen to know very well, Israel, has proved an extremely successful venture. I think that we have had cogent arguments for not dealing with the matter today. There are two reasons for this. First, it can create complications when the Report is being dealt with, and the other is that there may be misunderstandings that anyone in the House at all would be against the development of fish farming.
If we have a Division at the present time I think it would be misunderstood by a large number of people, who might think that there are Members in your Lordships' Committee who feel doubt about the success of the fish farming enterprise. I think its success can be achieved, and I think that it should be achieved. However. I think that the proper way for us to intervene is to press for the Report to be considered as speedily as possible, and to level as many questions as we possibly can at the Ministry to see that that is done. In the circumstances, I hope that we shall not have a Division on this particular matter.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Foot, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Arbuthnott, V.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Balerno, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkely, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Redesdale, L.

Blake, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rochester, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Killearn, L.

Seear, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Selsdon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Semphill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cairns, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Clinton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vernon, L.

Daventry, V.

Middleton, L.

Vickers, B.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Wade, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchuurch, B.

Wigoder, L.

Falkland, V.

Northesk, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Popplewell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Castle, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

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

Melchett, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Strang, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, I..

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Hoy, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Agricultural holdings in England and Wales: further restrictions on operation of certain notices to quit]:
6.59 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 21, after (" then ") insert (" unless the arbitrator in his award determines that the notice to quit should be allowed to take effect,").
The noble Lord said: Under Section 24 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 a notice to quit is not effective without the Minister's consent except under certain circumstances which are listed in subsection (2) and these include failure by the tenant to adhere to the terms of his agreement. Under Section 24(2)(d) if a tenant had not within a reasonable period complied with a notice to carry out work, usually repair work, according to the terms of his tenancy, then the notice to quit given for that reason was effective and no
554
counter-notice by the tenant could be served. There were, however, two safeguards under Section 24: first, the breach by the tenant had to be capable of being remedied and, secondly, the condition breached must be consistent with his responsibility to farm according to the rules of good husbandry.
Subsequently, the tenant was further protected by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, Section 19, and by regulations made in 1964. A notice to remedy must be in a prescribed form. No notice to do work can be served within 12 months of a previous work notice and the tenant must have reasonable time to do the work—that is, at least six months. Furthermore, the effect of the 1963 Act and the 1964 regulations was that a tenant can, before he does the work, go to arbitration on the works notice itself. When that happens the arbitrator can, under Section 19(2) of the 1963 Act, determine, first, any question arising on a works notice and, secondly, extend the time for doing any

555
work. So the notice has to comply with an elaborate set of rules or it will be invalid and there is no danger whatever of the tenant being given too short a time to get his repairs done. We now have Clause 11 which deals with arbitration on the works notice and which would enable the Lord Chancellor to give the arbitrator the additional powers specified. He would be able to strike out items in a works notice, even though they were the tenant's legal obligation and would be able to change the method or material required by the notice.
So far, we have been dealing with the tenant's right to go to arbitration on the notice to remedy itself. The tenant already has by the 1948 Act, as amended by the 1958 Agriculture Act, the right to go to arbitration on a subsequent notice to quit for failure to comply with a notice, so it would seem that, without Clause 12 of the present Bill, the tenant is doubly protected under the present law and under Clause 11 when enacted. First, the notice to remedy must be lawful, fair and reasonable. Secondly, a notice to quit on failure to comply with such a work notice would only be effective if an arbitration on a subsequent notice to quit concluded that the tenant had not complied with a fair, lawful and reasonable notice to do work. What is the point of Clause 12, therefore?
It would seem that a tenant is, by the previous legislation which I have mentioned and by the enactment of Clause 11, so fully protected at the notice to remedy stage that it must be impossible for any misuse of the procedure or harassment to take place. The arbitrator has, at the notice to remedy stage, all the powers needed to ensure that no notice to do work is unfair, onerous, contains too many items or demands too short a time to get the work done. Without Clause 12, an arbitrator on a notice to quit has merely to decide whether a lawful, fair and reasonable notice to do work has not been complied with. If it has not, it must surely by then be established that the farm is being wasted by a bad tenant. It is in the interests of food production that he should go.
The additional safeguards contained in Clause 12 as a result of which the tenant can go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal would seem not to be necessary. They could well introduce an element of delay
556
which might be harmful to agriculture. That is where I feel that they are dangerous. I shall listen with great interest when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explains why the clause is necessary and why the Agricultural Land Tribunal has to be brought into the proceedings. The amendment assumes that there are good reasons for Clause 12 and seeks to retain it in the Bill. However, it seeks to give the arbitrator the power, when it is quite clear that the farm is going to rack and ruin, to cut short the proceedings after the arbitration decision when the notice to quit must take effect and to say. " The time has come to end this affair: it cannot he allowed to take up further time and incur further expense by going to the Agricultural Land Tribunal." I beg to move.
7.5 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I shall certainly do my best to give a brief explanation of the advantages of the clause as we see them. Under the existing legislation, a landlord is able to serve a notice to quit on his tenant if the tenant fails to comply with the terms of a notice to do work within the time allowed. The tenant can refer the notice to quit to arbitration if he wishes to dispute it, on the grounds, for example. that the work which the landlord says has not been done has in fact been done. But if the arbitrator upholds the notice to quit the tenant will have to give up his tenancy on the appropriate date. So if the tenant fails to complete just one item or fails to complete the tasks by just the odd day he will lose his home and his livelihood. As an example. the Ministry of Agriculture was recently given details of a case where the tenant completed all the tasks required of him in the time allowed, except that he failed to remove the trimmings from his hedge-cutting. The notice to quit was upheld by the arbitrator, who acted strictly in accordance with the existing law on the subject. There was no suggestion of harassment here; the landowner was acting quite properly, so far as I know.
In the Government's view, this procedure is too inflexible, hearing in mind how serious its outcome can be for the tenant. The danger is that the punishment can far outweigh any crime that may have been committed. We decided, therefore. that an appeals procedure was needed

557
under which the landlord's reasons for the notice to quit could be viewed against the long-established criterion of whether a fair and reasonable landlord would insist on possession, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. This alteration would have the additional advantage of acting as a disincentive to a landlord who might be contemplating getting rid of his tenant by the misapplication of the notice to do work procedure.
The new procedure is set out in Clause 12 and gives the tenant who wishes to challenge the notice to quit two options. Either he can refer the notice to quit to arbitration first, if he believes it to be wrongly based, and only thereafter require the notice to be referred to the Tribunal for a final decision: or, if he knows that the notice to quit is soundly based, he may decide to forgo arbitration and, in effect, throw himself on the mercy of the Tribunal and on the long-established criterion of the fair and reasonable landlord test which I mentioned.
The practical effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, whether intentional or not, would be to cut out the final arbitration. I believe he will accept that any tenant served with a notice to quit in this way will naturally avoid the risk of arbitration upon it and opt for the second alternative which I outlined; that is, a reference direct to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, even in cases where the tenant might have wished to challenge the details of the notice to quit itself. I suggest that this would lead to a highly undesirable intrusion by the Tribunal into matters which are properly the concern of an arbitrator.
As noble Lords know, tribunals are intended to deal with questions of opinion. So far as possible they should avoid getting drawn into arguments about whether or not a ditch has been properly cleaned or whether a gate has been properly hung. Questions of fact requiring professional knowledge and expertise, on the other hand, are customarily dealt with by arbitrators, and the profession has made strong representations to us that this should remain the position. For these reasons, therefore, I regret to say that I regard the Amendment as
558
undesirable. I believe that the clause as drafted, with its choice of options for a tenant, depending on the circumstances of the case, is the most practical way of dealing with the matter, and in view of what I have said and the explanations given, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Lord BURTON: I am a little confused over what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said in relation to the case which he quoted. He said that most of the terms had been complied with, but the notice would never have been served in the first place if the tenant had been carrying out his obligations. Obviously the tenant was a bad tenant in the first place. Why, just because he had not carried out one requirement, is it said that this was a bad case against him? The noble Lord said that the Tribunal is apparently supposed to deal only with matters of opinion, but this was a matter of fact: it was not a matter of opinion. According to the noble Lord's own words the tenant had not complied. Why, therefore, do the Government seek to try to keep bad tenants in farms which must he to the detriment of good agriculture?
Lord MELCHETT: I think the noble Lord misunderstood me. The case which I quoted was decided by an arbitrator under the existing law before the Bill was introduced, and the questions of fact, as then. will continue to be settled by the arbitrator. I am saying that in that case I should suggest that any fair and reasonable person, and any fair and reasonable landlord, looking at the whole circumstances of the case, would say that the fact that someone had not cleared up a few hedge trimmings was not sufficient grounds for that tenant to lose the farm. I do not think that anyone who farms would say that it is always necessary to clear up hedge trimmings: certainly I do not clear up my own on my farm unless they interfere with an agricultural operation. Hedge trimmings do not do any harm laying on the ground. quoted that case only as an example, and I am not saying that the law, or any changes in the law, are based on that one example. But it gives an example of how the expression of opinion by the Tribunal might well bring a more sensible: basis to decisions about whether or not someone should lose his farm.
Lord BURTON: I do not think there was any misunderstanding: it was a matter of fact, not of opinion, and the noble Lord said that the Tribunal would deal with opinion.
Earl FERRERS: One of the difficulties we arc in here is that of discussing a case the facts of which we do not know in full. This could be a bad precedent and incidentally—I say this with the greatest of respect —it could be an example of how hard cases can make bad law. The problem which worries most of us on this side of the Committee is not that there should be justification for any form of harassment, which is quite intolerable; nor is it a desire on the part of people to enable the landlord in any way to turn an unfair screw on the tenant. What concerns most of us is the fact that in any form of the landlord/tenant system there must at some point be a sanction, so that one can say, " Look, this must be done." If one removes too many sanctions then in the end the farm runs down. At present, if work requires to be done, a landlord can say to the tenant that the work should be done, and if it is not done the landlord can serve on the tenant a notice to remedy, which would normally encourage the tenant to carry out the work. If then the tenant does not do the work, or if he considers the situation is unfair, he can go to arbitration. Up to now the arbitrator could say that it had been done on the right form and that the requirements of the landlord were justified. He could alter the length of time in which the work should be done.
However, now under Clause 11 the arbitrator is given more scope. He is allowed to tell the tenant that he can use different materials and he can alter the length of time in which the work can be done. When that arbitration procedure has been gone through and still the work is not done, then the landlord, under the old system, would issue a notice to quit. That situation can be put before an arbitrator to see whether it is fair. The problem which is worrying noble Lords on this side is that under this clause on top of that—the arbitrator having said that he has taken all the circumstances into account and that the notice to quit which was issued was right and justified—the matter can then go to an Agricultural Land Tribunal. So eventually one
560
wonders what is the point of having got an arbitrator to say what is the right thing if the case is then taken to an Agricultural Land Tribunal for it to say whether the arbitrator was right or justified. Certainly the cases of harassment which have been mentioned, and were mentioned in another place, were quite intolerable, and the case which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explained to us today would seem to be rather curious—a person losing his holding because of some hedge trimmings. I wonder how many of those cases the Ministry has been told of? What records has the Ministry on this matter? Can the noble Lord say how many cases of harassment have been brought to the attention of the Ministry? While it is quite intolerable that harassment should be allowed, we ought to be fairly careful not to be so sympathetic to one or two cases that we remove the sanctions right across the board. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord can throw some light on this point.
Lord MELCHETT: I think that there is very little between the noble Earl and myself on this. I welcome his agreement that the changes made by Clause 11 will give a little more flexibility to what the arbitrator can do. The arbitrators have to decide on matters of fact. They have made this point to us. They have to decide whether a ditch has been cleaned, whether a wall has been built. That is their job. They are excellent, extremely efficient, and they do it very well. There is no complaint on any side as to the job they do. What the arbitrators do not do is decide matters of opinion: is it right, is it fair and reasonable that the landlord should want the holding back in these circumstances? An arbitrator cannot make a decision on that question, and I understand that no arbitrators wish to be drawn into making decisions on matters of opinion of that kind. I suggest that an Agricultural Land Tribunal, composed as it is, with an independent legal chairman, is a body very well suited to make that kind of judgment.
I was asked about the number of cases. There have not been many cases of the type we have been mentioning; I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise. Some of these cases have occurred in Wales and, I believe, in the West Midlands, too. But I am not pretending that there

561
have been a large number of such cases; nobody who has spoken about this Bill has ever pretended that. There is a difficulty about having precise figures because the Ministry of Agriculture census returns show only the number of tenants who have left holdings and the number of new tenants who have gone in. The reasons for tenants leaving are not disclosed necessarily. If harassment has taken place it would not be disclosed in the census return. Therefore no one is suggesting that the Ministry should, or could, have comprehensive figures on this, but for our part we are not claiming that there are many cases at all.
Indeed, I would accept that once Clause 11 is enacted, it is very likely that there will be even fewer cases. The number of cases may become very small indeed; hopefully there will be no cases. Obviously landlords, tenants and anyone else involved in farming would be much happier if there were fewer cases which had to be taken to an Agricultural Land Tribunal. The noble Earl said that at the end of the day there has to he a sanction. I agree with that, but the problem in this area is that there is only one sanction in the last resort—that of the tenant losing the farm. That is a very dramatic and serious sanction for a tenant. It is no wish of the Government to ensure that bad tenants, farming badly, remain in possession of the land. As the noble Lord said, that would not do food production or British agriculture any good. At the same time, I hope that everyone will accept that it is not right that a sanction as severe as that should be applied to a tenant without much care and thought being given to the matter.
I suggest that in the possibly very few cases (hopefully no cases) where this would come before an Agricultural Land Tribunal, having gone through the various stages of arbitration, any landlord acting to get rid of a bad tenant would have nothing to worry about, and the Agricultural Land Tribunal would find that a fair and reasonable landlord would wish to be rid of the tenant, and that is what would happen. It is in those cases —admittedly there may be very few—where a tenant is liable to lose the holding because of what is in effect a technicality (because it is technicalities and matters of
562
fact which the arbitrators decide) that we feel that a body which is able to make decisions on matters of opinion should be brought in, to remove any possibility that somebody can lose a holding on a technicality. I think that is why the clause is important.
Lord MIDDLETON: It has been most interesting to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the inclusion of Clause 12. I am glad he said that the number of cases envisaged is very few. That is my understanding, too; and, as far as I know, it is in these very few cases which have occurred in Wales, which have nearly always occurred when the tenant has not bothered to exercise his own statutory rights, that the notice to work stays. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that the arbitrator has not the discretion to say what a fair and reasonable landlord would do. Under the present law, at the notice to quit stage, that is perfectly true. However, with all the enactments that have taken place and with Clause 12, the notice to remedy stage is where the arbitrator can say what is fair and reasonable; and if it is not fair and reasonable that the notice to work should make the tenant do the various things—repair, and so on—then that is when the arbitrator either strikes out an item or gives him plenty of time to do it. So the likelihood of a tenant not having completed one thing and then being thrown out of his farm is, I should have thought, absolutely nil because of the safeguards that there are at the, notice to remedy stage, when the arbitrator has this very wide discretion.
Just suppose that a tenant has not tidied up his hedge brushings. It is perfectly true that without Clause 12 the arbitrator can say only whether he has or has not fulfilled the list of jobs that he had to do under the notice to remedy. But I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has quite appreciated what my Amendment says. My Amendment leaves in Clause 12, and under Clause 12 he has two options, one of which is to go straight to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, who would then exercise the fair and reasonable landlord test; and, clearly, if he had not tidied up his hedge brushings that would not he fair and reasonable, the landlord would lose and the tenant's notice to quit would not he effective. So really I

563
do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, called the misapplication of a notice to remedy can happen now.
The other respect in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, misunderstood me —or perhaps he was not advised quite correctly— was when he said that my Amendment cuts out the final arbitration. It does not. Under Clause 12, as I said, the tenant has two options: either he can go straight to the ALT or he can elect to go to arbitration. If he loses the arbitration, he can then go to the ALT under Clause 12. The whole purpose of my Amendment is that, when he has not elected to go to the ALT in the first place but has elected to go to arbitration, it is at that point, in order to avoid the wastage of farm buildings and land, that I feel that in a bad case an arbitrator should be given the power to say, " No, we must finish with this; this man is wasting the land of England, and he must go ".
I am impressed—and I shall not press this Amendment for this reason—by the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has advanced, when he says that doing that is not properly the concern of an arbitrator. I think it may very well be that this is not the right way to improve this clause. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that we must not have inordinate delay and wastage of buildings and land. It may very well be that a better way to do this would be to cut out the arbitrator altogether at the notice to quit stage, to let him go straight to an ALT and for the ALT to sit with an assessor—and this can be done under Schedule 9 to the 1947 Agriculture Act. That may very well be the right answer, and I should therefore not like to press this Amendment but to think very carefully on the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has advanced, and possibly produce something better on Report.
Lord MELCHETT: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, it may be helpful to get the record straight. I apologise if I misled him. I was answering the noble Lord behind him on a rather more general point on Clause 12, and in the remarks I made later in the debate I was not, as I am sure I should have been, addressing myself particularly to the Amendment. On the Amendment, I was not suggesting that the noble Lord's
564
Amendment itself cut out the second arbitration. What I was saying was that in fact, if the arbitrator was able to tell the tenant that he could not go to the ALT, which the noble Lord's Amendment would give the arbitrator the power to do, in practice all tenants would go straight to the ALT, and that would therefore mean that in cases which could have been decided by arbitrators everybody would go to the ALT. That was the point I was making, and I merely make that correction to ensure that we have that clear.
Lord MIDDLETON: I think that, as the noble Lord says, in practice everybody would go to the ALT, and I think that is what should happen. I should like to look at this question, and perhaps produce something a little better on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Agricultural holdings in Scotland: power to enable demand to remedy a breach to he modified on arbitration]:
7.26 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 16, line 35, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: These Amendments to Clauses 13 and 14, with which my noble friend Lord Burton and I are both concerned, really apply to Scotland in this case, and I am speaking both as a member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation and also as a farmer and a member of the National Farmers' Union. What I am putting forward tonight are the views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and some of what I am going to say has already been discussed at Committee stage in another place. However, apparently very little time was given to this, and it may well have been—I do not know, because I was not there—that perhaps it was taken, as it is now being taken, rather at the end of the evening. Nevertheless, I should like to put to your Lordships the case which these Amendments represent.
Perhaps I may say just one word about the views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation on these two clauses,

565
Clauses 13 and 14. We do not really think that these clauses are necessary, because no evidence has been produced to substantiate in any way the necessity for them. It seems that they have been considered in isolation, separate from the balance which exists in Scotland between the landlord and the tenant and which was the result of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. That Act followed very exhaustive and lengthy discussions among the Department of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and we do not think that a major change in the balance of relationships between landlord and tenant should now be introduced in this Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Any major changes in the relationship between landlord and tenant should be dealt with only as part of a general review of the position of agricultural holdings as a whole.
I should like to move the Amendments to Clause 13. The first one, which is to page 16, line 35, is the main one; and Amendments Nos. 2B and 2C are consequential. Amendment No. 2A, which is to leave out paragraph (a) at line 35 of page 16, is moved because, under Section 25(2)(e) and (f) of the 1949 Act, the time given to remedy any breach must be reasonable. Thus the arbiter already has a discretion to hold that the time allowed is unreasonable. As an example, had there been 12 breaches of a lease, of which 11 had been remedied, it would still be possible for the arbiter to hold that the time for remedying the twelfth breach was unreasonable and thus preclude the serving of an incontestable notice to quit. This seems to be of great importance. The next two Amendments, Nos. 2B and 2C, are consequential on the first one which is to leave out paragraph (a). I beg to move.
Lord BURTON: I have had personal experience of having to have to serve notice for breach of terms of a lease. As my noble friend has said, in the other place discussion on this was brief and they have already found that the current law was so complicated that there was some difficulty in debating the matter without legal advice. Apparently, no legal Member was forthcoming to advise
566
them on the Committee at that time. The law is really excessively complicated: so much so that a well-known legal authority on Scottish agricultural law, who wrote a reference book on the subject, was wrong on this point. Thus having taken advice from his book we were found to be wrong and were unable to pursue the notice which we served on the tenant. I am pleased to say that there is now a revised edition of the book. On the second attempt to serve notice, the matter went to arbitration and despite the fact that we required only a short stretch of main drain to be cleared, the arbiter found, most unreasonably, most people felt, that we had given inadequate time.
What was not known to the arbiter—and perhaps it was irrelevant for him —was that the tenant was bone idle, a had farmer and owed money all round the country. Before we, as landlords, could take further action, the matter was taken out of our hands when the tenant became bankrupt. Under the management of a new tenant the farm is now unrecognisable. I think that this case is typical of cases where a matter goes to arbitration. It is not normal to serve notice on a tenant unless something is very wrong. I would give another instance, which is, unfortunately, a current one, where we have an alcoholic as a big tenant. He is making a horrible mess of his holding and the neighbours are complaining. We find that already, without any further restrictions on the law, it is almost impossible to remove him. Should this current addition go through, the situation will be very much aggravated.
There is a third case. A tenant had a stroke. Of course, one is sorry for him; but he is making a terrible mess of his farm and he is holding on in the hope that a son will succeed him. At a recent branch meeting of the NFU, a resolution was sent to the headquarters of the NFU—quite unsolicited by me; I did not talk on it—stating that the pendulum had swung too far towards the security of the tenant. Despite this, the Government are now proposing to give even greater security. There are a great many tenants on this local branch—they have the majority—and they feel that the security already given is making farms which should be coming on to the market restricted to

567
bad farming. To make the situation worse is surely a bad thing to do.
I understand that there has been only one known case of harassment of a tenant in Scotland. I think it was a case in Caithness and possibly this has been the case which has prompted the Government to introduce this legislation. To introduce legislation on the basis of one case, I maintain, is not a good thing to do. Regardless of the fact that there is only one case, the Government produce these proposals which can do nothing but permit had tenants to remain in their holdings to the detriment not only of their own holdings but of their neighbours and the estates on which they are situated. In another place the Minister agreed with what I have said about harassment in Scotland; that is, that there was this one case in Caithness. So far it would appear that the Government have produced no good reason for these proposals and on second thoughts I am sure that they must see what a detrimental effect they will have. I hope that they will put sound management before their proposals and accept the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I was interested to hear what the noble Lord had to say about the resolution passed by his local branch of the NFU. He went on to say that, despite the views expressed, the Government had pressed ahead with this legislation. What he left out was the fact that, despite the resolution of his local branch which was sent to the NFU headquarters, as I understand it the NFU have given a general welcome to Clauses 11 and 12, at least in so far as they affect England and Wales. I am not sure about the NFU attitude to the suggestion that the law in Scotland should be brought into line with them.
Turning to the effect of this Amendment, it would be to remove from the scope of the arbiter's powers the power to make changes in the time allotted for the remedying of any breach of any term of condition of a tenancy by the doing of work of provision, repair, maintenance or replacement. This would leave the Scottish tenant at a disadvantage in comparison with his counterparts in England and Wales where arbitrators have had this power already since 1964. It was to remedy that anomaly that this proposal was put forward in the first place.
568
The existing position is that an arbiter in Scotland can only arbitrate on the reasonableness or otherwise of a specified time for a specified activity. Having given his opinion on whether or not the time is reasonable, he can do no more.
The new provisions would enable the arbiter himself to specify a time within which the work should be done—and this can be different periods for different items under consideration. In doing this the arbiter can take full account of all the circumstances, some of which may not have been foreseen when the period was originally specified. I would suggest to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that this does not even amount to a new power introduced in this Bill but one which, happily, appears to have been working successfully with, so far as I am aware, no problems in England for many years. I hope that in view of that experience, they might see fit to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord BURTON: As this was only introduced at the Committee stage in another place, I wonder whether the Scottish NFU have even been consulted. If it has, there has not been time for consultation to be sent to the branches. This has never come before the branch in my area. I am sure it would have done so, had there been time. Perhaps, on Report, the noble Lord might give us some information as to what consultation had taken place; because, as I have said, I gather that there was only one case in which this could possibly have had an effect. It seems to me quite wrong of the Government to introduce legislation which is not wanted by anyone and which could have only a detrimental effect.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened to the noble Lord. I think the situation in Scotland is different. I am sorry we have not got on the Front Bench—and this is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; he is a very able farmer—a Scottish Minister. In fact, the law is different in Scotland from that in England and the conditions are different. I will withdraw this Amendment but when we come to the Report stage perhaps we might be able to have a view from the Scottish Office on this agricultural situation because it is really rather important. This is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I

569
know that the Scottish law is different. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Owing to a printer's error, Amendment 2C is in the wrong place on the Marshalled List. I will therefore call Amendment 2D.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment 2D:
Page 17, line 7, at end insert—
" Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall authorise the arbiter to delete any item in respect of which the tenant is under a statutory obligation in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the said Act of 1949."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2D. Section 5 of the 1949 Act, which I referred to when I moved the first Amendment, provides that there shall be deemed to he included in any lease of an agricultural holding:
" a provision that the liability of the tenant in relation to the maintenance of fixed equipment shall extend only to a liability to maintain the fixed equipment on the holding in as good a state of repair (natural decay and fair wear and tear excepted) as it was in immediately after it was put in repair as aforesaid or, in the case of equipment provided, replaced or renewed during the tenancy as it was in immediately after it was so provided, improved, replaced or renewed."
The Amendment I am moving seeks to ensure that this minimal statutory obligation of the tenant is not further eroded by this Bill. This is important, it is something which affects all good farming, farmers and landlords. It would be a good plan if we could see this Amendment incorporated so as to seek to ensure that the minimum statutory obligation of the tenant is not further eroded. I beg to move.
7.41 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Baroness had indicated, the purpose of this Amendment would be to secure that an arbiter did not delete any item which the tenant had a statutory liability to undertake under Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. That section provides that the liability of a tenant shall he limited to keeping the fixed equipment in as good a state of repair (apart from natural decay and fair wear and tear) as it was when the tenant entered the holding. The landlord has an
570
obligation to put the fixed equipment into a thorough state of repair as soon as possible after the beginning of the tenancy.
I appreciate the intention of the Amendment: namely, that the tenant should continue to he required to see that the fixed equipment remains, apart from fair wear and tear, in the same condition as it was when he took it over. But the whole point of the changes we are now making in the law is to deal with the case where the landlord makes a demand which falls within the statutory obligations of the tenant but which may nevertheless be regarded as being unnecessary or unjustified.
The arbiter may delete an item only if he is satisfied that it is unnecessary or unjustified: and, before reaching this conclusion, he has to take into account whether that particular item is required in the interests of good husbandry or sound estate management. I freely admit that there would probably be few cases where the works demanded by a landlord in respect of these tenants' obligations would be either unnecessary or unjustified.
But circumstances can change, and the occasion can arise where any reasonable person would conclude that work, which strictly speaking just falls within the tenant's obligations, is neither necessary nor justified. For example, he could, under the law, be required to keep in good condition a stone dyke. The noble Baroness, while demanding a Scottish Minister, was kind enough to say that she was not casting any aspersions on my own presence here. I appreciate that Scottish law is different and very difficult.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, even Scottish legal experts get it wrong. I am sure that the noble Baroness will forgive me for not being as conversant with Scottish law as I am with English law. However, I have taken the trouble to find out a little about the Scottish stivation. I believe that whereas any " decent " farmer understands that a dyke is something which goes down in the ground, in Scotland it is something which sticks up in the air. However, I was giving an example of a tenant who was obliged to keep a stone dyke in good repair. I suggest that the maintenance of a stone dyke might well have no value to the tenant's holding, and could be inordinately expensive at today's prices, or under pre-

571
sent day conditions; but, nevertheless, under the law he could be held to be liable to repair.
The obligations of the tenant referred to in Section 5 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 will, in many cases, cover much the greatest parts of the tenants' obligations in relation to fixed equipment under the lease. If we were to take away the arbiter's powers to delete any item, which is referred to in that section, we would remove much of the powers which would be given to the arbiter to delete any item from a list of works on the grounds that it is unnecessary or unjustified. In other words, the passing of this Amendment would be a very severe limitation on the arbiter's powers to delete items. I suggest, given the example I have outlined, that it is desirable that the arbiter should have this power with the stringent safeguards which I have mentioned.
Lord BURTON: I am worried about the noble Lord's reply. I cannot see why any landlord should insist that the tenant does some work which is not necessary or justified. In particular he mentioned a stone dyke or wall. If the landlord was specifying that this had to be repaired there is probably good justification for it being repaired. I do not know if he is suggesting that there should be a few sticks of wood stuck in holes where the dyke has fallen down. I am very particular with road widening where the road authority are always trying to put up wire and posts instead of replacing walls. This is unjustified because a wall, properly maintained, should last for a long time, whereas posts and wire will probably last from between eight to ten years. I cannot see any necessity for this part of the Bill. I should like to support the noble Baroness in saying that it should be deleted.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I. have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with great interest. I should like at some other period—not in this Committee—to argue that a dyke is an important piece of agricultural equipment in a country where snow comes at least once a year and where the only way in which you can protect your sheep from snow is by having dykes. I will not argue that point which is something which perhaps
572
only applies to the North of England and parts of Scotland. It is a pity if the Government will not consider this Amendment. Unreasonable demands will not be made. Demands such as the noble Lord mentioned could be not only reasonable but essential for the good of the farm. That is a point where I am arguing a dyke versus a fence. Snow can blow through a fence whereas snow gets held up by a dyke. I hope the noble Lord will consider this. I do not propose to press the Amendment. On the w hole, landlords make reasonable requests and this one—certainly in parts of Scotland and in certain climates—would be reasonable.
Lord BURTON: Could the noble Lord tell us whether there is any case where there has been an unjustifiable demand on the tenant?
Lord MELCHETT: I do not have any cases in front of me; but I do not feel guilty about that because when I give a particular case I am told by noble Lords opposite that it is wrong to make a law on one bad case. One has to look at these things in general principles. The noble Lord said he did not think a landlord would ever make an unjustifiable and unreasonable demand. I am not going to cast aspersions on landlords; but to take another example, maybe landlords never commit theft or murder but it does not mean to say that the law against theft or the law against murder should not apply to them. The fact that one does not expect people to do things is not necessarily an argument for not making sure that on the Statute Book we have a sensible framework of laws which reflects what everyone hopes all will do. There has never been any suggestion by Members of the Government or anybody discussing this Bill that the behaviour outlined in the Bill as being expected of landlords was not the way the vast majority, if not all the landlords in Scotland, are likely to behave. I do not think that is necessarily an argument for not legislating.
I am entirely with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the great value from the farming and amenity point of view of stone dykes. I would not want my example to be taken as suggesting that a barbed wire fence is any substitute. But it is possible, however much snow there is,

573
that a farmer could give up keeping sheep for one reason or another. It is in that situation that a stone dyke may not be as necessary as it was in a previous time.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 2E:
Page 17, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (2) we believe to be unnecessary, as the arbiter will already have had an opportunity of exercising a discretion in relation to varying the time or times for remedying breaches. If the breaches have not been remedied at the expiration of such time or times, the notice to quit should become incontestable without the intervention of the Land Court. We feel very strongly that subsection (2) is quite unnecessary because the arbiter will already have had the opportunity of exercising a discretion in varying the time or times for remedying the breaches. I think the Government should consider the suggestion that this paragraph is unnecessary and could be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I hope this is something on which the noble Baroness and I will be able to agree. Her Amendment would have the effect of removing from this clause the provision which allows the Land Court to be brought in to specify a date for the termination of the tenancy by notices to quit in the event of the tenant failing to do works within the period specified by the arbiter.
This provision is designed to be helpful to the landlord, as it would allow the Land Court to fix a date for the termination of the tenancy which is to be not earlier than the date on which it could have been terminated if the landlord had given notice to quit on the expiry of the period originally specified in the demand or (if there was no period mentioned) on the date the demand was given. Alternatively, if this was later, the date may be fixed at six months after the expiry of the period specified by the arbiter or as extended by him.
574
There thus seems to me to he achieved a fair balance between the landlord's and the tenant's interest. The tenant gets at least six months' notice from the ending of the period he was given to do the work, and the landlord will have to wait less time than if he had had to wait for the expiry of the period or extended period fixed by the arbiter before being able to give his notice to quit. I would understand if the noble Baroness were worried that the involvement of the Land Court would necessitate extra expenses; but the landlord would not himself have recourse to the Land Court in this connection unless he thought that it would be to his advantage to do so. Here again, we are dealing with a fairly rare occurrence. Tenants are not being given notice to quit regularly for breach of the conditions of their lease. In the rare case which may occur, I am sure that this safeguard would be an advantage to both parties.
Lord BURTON: I think the noble Lord's arguments would be very sound had it not been for the fact that if you apply to the Land Court you may have to wait for six months.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Perhaps the noble Lord will consider this again and discuss it with his advisers. I think what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said is most apposite. However, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 2G:
Page 18, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 17.
The noble Baroness said: On this point, the arbiter has already been given power to extend and further extend the time to remedy a breach. It would be absurd and illogical to allow a further opportunity to extend the time after his award has been made. To do so would create greater uncertainty and make arbitration a ludicrous procedure, both protracted and immensely expensive. We therefore feel that the wording which the Amendment seeks to remove is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: It might be helpful if I made a general remark before going

575
on to discuss this particular Amendment, to make it clear that the Government's intention in bringing forward these clauses was to bring the law in Scotland more closely into line with that of England and Wales: and I hope that will serve as some justification to the noble Baroness for the fact that here is an English farmer putting arguments against her Amendments this evening.
The provisions we have been discussing, and more particularly those which are not parallelled in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill—that is the clauses which deal with this subject in England—are broadly equivalent to provisions which have been contained in the English law since the Agriculture (Notices to Remedy and Notices to Quit) Order 1964. The words which the noble Baroness wishes to delete are in fact contained in Article 13(1) of that order. This provision deals with a situation where a tenant has been given notice to quit because of a breach of the conditions of the tenancy by failure to do works, and has then referred the notice to quit to arbitration under Section 27(2) of the Agriculture Act 1949. The provision is designed to meet the case where, owing to unforeseen circumstances, a time which was quite reasonable when it was specified has become unreasonable and therefore enables the arbiter in such a case to extend the period. The arbiter must of course take into account the length of time which has elapsed since the service of the demand. Indeed, there is no difference in principle between the words it is proposed to delete and the immediately preceding passage in the Bill. The first part deals with a case where the breach has been remedied but not in the time allowed and allows a notional extension of time so that the tenant cannot be held to be in breach of conditions of the lease only because he has not acted within the time specified. The passage which the noble Baroness seeks to delete deals with the other type of case, where the breach has not been remedied already and allows the arbiter again to extend the time, but in this case it is an actual extension rather than a notional extension. I hope the noble Baroness will see that there is quite a good case for leaving these words in the Bill and that she will not press her Amendment.
The Viscount of ARBUTHNOTT: This is the second time the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said that the Government's justification for introducing some of these proposals is to bring the law concerning landlord and tenant in Scotland into line with that in England. I think this is a had principle to go on, and perhaps I could ask the noble Lord to take this back and think about it—because we have already heard how very different farming is in the two countries, historically and from the legal and practical point of view. They are very diverse. I think it is unsound, therefore, to justify so much of the Government's case on that principle and I hope that this will be reconsidered.
Lord BURTON: Had the noble Viscount not made that point, I had intended to make it myself on the next Amendment. It seems to me that the provisions we are discussing regarding the enforcement of tenancies are not so often used in England because in England the matter of whether or not a tenant pays his rent is very much more stringent than in Scotland. In England, if he fails to pay his rent and the time has expired, then he has no appeal and can be put out: but the position in Scotland is very different because right up to the last minute, even where he is taken to court, lie can pay the money in even if it is several months overdue. If we are going to bring Scotland into line with England on these matters, I cannot understand why the Government have not seen fit to bring Scotland into line with England on the question of the payment of rent.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not sure of the answer on the payment of rent but suspect, from the little legal knowledge that I once had, that it may well be to do with the fundamentally different systems of law which I accept exist in the two countries. I am not pretending that the Government wish to bring everything done in Scotland into line with England. At the same time, these provisions are already fairly much paralleled in the two countries. Although there may be differences between the legal system in Scotland and that in the rest of the United Kingdom, I would not accept that there are vast differences in farming between, say, some of the areas of Wales and much of Scotland and, indeed. some of the lower lying areas of Scotland and much of the rest of

577
the country, in particular some parts of Northern England. So while I accept that there may be underlying legal differences, I would not accept that there are great differences in farming practice.
The other point I would make on the general issue that has been raised is that in Wales, where the landlord/tenant relationship had worked very well for a considerable period of time—indeed, probably since the 1948 and 1949 Acts were passed—there came a period with some new landlords when there were a series of very had cases, which I do not think anyone denies, and harassment of tenants took place. and it was to meet those cases that the change in the law was very largely suggested.
The noble Lord said that there may have been only one case which has aroused any publicity in Scotland, but I do not think there can be any guarantee that what happened in Wales some time ago, which led to a great deal of ill feeling in the farming community as a whole, could not happen in Scotland at some time in the future, if these changes were not put on the Statute Book. I think that that is a consideration which should weigh very heavily with all of us, because, after all, a new landlord—indeed, as I believe was suggested by a noble Lord opposite on Second Reading, it may be somebody who has not been involved in farming before, who does not understand the way landlords and tenants have traditionally behaved towards each other—may come in and cause a disproportionate amount of ill feeling on all sides of the farming community. I hope that while these provisions may not be used they will stop that from happening.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord. In some ways, I think that some of the legislation in Scotland—and I do not speak as a Scottish Nationalist, because I am not one—is in advance of that in England. I say that in no criticism of England; it is simply that I sometimes believe we are ahead. I believe, from my conversations with the Scottish Landowners' Federation, that we have never had any of these troubles, and as regards these efforts to bring the situation in Scotland into line with England we have never needed the same kind of legislation.
578
If the Government are not prepared to accept any of these Amendments, I hope that they will not upset the relationship between the tenant and the landlord, and what has happened in Scotland in the past. I do not want to press this Amendment. I would just say to the noble Lord, while I am talking about Scotland, that my father was a Scotsman but I am not a Scottish Nationalist, although I have worked all my life in agriculture in Scotland, and I do not believe that some of these provisions in the Bill which apply to Scotland are necessary. As I said, I shall not press the Amendment, but I hope that what has been said will be looked at, and that at a later stage we may have some alterations. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Agricultural holdings in Scotland: further restrictions on operation of certain notices to quit]:
8.4 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 2H:
Page 19, line I4, leave out from ("quit ") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to delete the words:
" unless in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession."
What worries me is that the Land Court can adjudicate only on what has already been to arbitration and this provision certainly does not question whether a tenant is a good or a bad farmer. The chances are that a landlord is trying to remove a tenant only because he is a bad farmer, and to give a bad farmer the protection afforded by this clause seems to be quite unreasonable. I agree that this is a wrecking Amendment—I make no bones about it—but the clause is such that it ought to be wrecked. In another place, the same Amendment was moved in Committee and was defeated by only one vote. I hope that your Lordships will give the clause more consideration than it received there, and I am sure you will all come to the conclusion that the clause is a bad one.
What has not apparently been considered is the length of time the proposed proceedings will take. One does not get arbitration at a day's notice, let alone a second arbitration, and one could well have to wait weeks for a hearing. I mentioned the possibility of six months just now, and I believe it is quite normal for the Land Court to make only two circuits a year, so it could well take a considerable time. In addition to this, it appears that there would be very substantial expense. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that what the Government are creating on top of what is already very complicated legislation is a lawyers' picnic. Failing acceptance of this Amendment, we really must consider that the Government arc producing what we could well call a had tenant's charter. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As the noble Lord has said, this amounts to a wrecking Amendment, and it will not come as any surprise to him to hear me say that I could not possibly consider accepting it. Indeed, to accept it would make the enactment of Clause I4—as I think he intends—to a large extent completely meaningless. Maybe I can try to dissuade the noble Lord from doing that by explaining what the clause is intended to do.
The clause intends that where a tenant is given a notice to quit for a failure to remedy a breach of the conditions of his lease, involving a failure to do works, the tenant has a right to give a counter notice and, if he does so, then the notice to quit will not have effect unless the Land Court consents. The effect of this is to transfer the type of notice to quit which we are considering from the incontestable to the contestable category.
The intention of subsection (4) is to give guidance to the Scottish Land Court as to the considerations which they are to take into account when such a notice to quit is referred to them. They are to consent to the-notice to quit unless it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. The Amendment would, by deletion, remove the criteria which the Land Court are to weigh. The clause would then require the Land Court simply to consent to any such notice referred to them. This would
580
virtually remove the protection which this clause seeks to give to the tenant, and of course there would then be no point in the tenant serving a counter notice in wile first place.
It is true that giving the power to the tenant to serve a counter notice means that the landlord has to refer his case to the Land Court before the notice can become operative, and there might be the very rare case where a landlord, having proceeded as far as a notice to quit, would not for some reason take the final step of taking this to the Land Court. In such a case, the tenant might benefit from the clause after the noble Lord had amended it, but in general, as I said, the Amendment defeats the whole object of the clause and I could not possibly accept it.
The noble Lord has said that the intention is to create a lawyers' picnic. I cannot accept that, and I am surprised that the noble Lord should suggest it, because my understanding is that very few cases arise now so there will be very few cases where a tenant is able to take something to the Land Court. So I cannot see that this will really make Scottish lawyers a lot of money. Indeed, my hope would he that we would remove any chance of a tenant being treated unfairly and unjustly. The noble Lord prefaced his remarks by saying that a landlord will take this action only if he wants to get a had tenant out. I hope the noble Lord is right, but there is no guarantee that that is the case. The noble Lord believes it, and I certainly believe it in the vast majority of cases, but there is no guarantee that that is the case. But if that is the case, it will not lead to a lawyers' picnic. It will merely provide a safeguard for those tenants where the noble Lord is unfortunately proved wrong, and the landlord is getting a tenant out not because he is a bad tenant, but for some other reason.
Lord BURTON: It appears to me that the only reason why there are very few cases is that the law is already too complicated. Here we have a very substantial increase in the amount of litigation which will be brought about if one tries to bring one of these cases. I feel very strongly about this matter. It has been brought to my attention that Scottish business is usually put right at the end of business,

581
that it is treated with a good deal of contempt and that if I were to press this Amendment the Committee would be counted out. There are only two more Amendments to be dealt with tonight and l am therefore very reluctant to withdraw this Amendment. We might then see whether or not other noble Lords wish to count out the Committee.
Lord MELCHETT: May I point out to the noble Lord that I have a feeling that it is the result of a conversation with the noble Lord sitting behind him, Lord Balerno, that he has made this point about Scottish business. This afternoon the noble- Lord. Lord Balerno, and other Scottish fish farming interests took a very great deal of the time of the Committee in pressing to a Division an Amendment which is quite clearly not appropriate to this Bill. Indeed, that was said by the noble Earl who speaks on agriculture for the Opposition in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is quite entitled to press Amendments to a Division and I make no complaint about that. On the other hand, for there then to come a complaint that Scottish business has been pushed to the tail end of the day because of the length of time that was spent discussing an Amendment which, with great respect, both Front Benches, by and large, agreed did not belong in the Bill, seems to me to be a little unfair.
Lord BURTON: Looking across the Chamber I do not believe that there is anyone on the Government Front Bench who comes from Scotland. Certainly when we have sought this evening to get answers on Scottish business there has been nobody to answer us. This is contempt and I feel very strongly about it. I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: Could the noble Lord tell me what are the questions on Scottish business which I have not been able to answer, because I am not aware of any? I have done my very best to answer all the points which have been put to me by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I am not aware that there has been any point which has been put to me on any of the Amendments which have been moved by noble Lords opposite that I have not done my very best to answer.
Lord BURTON: I am sure that none of us has any complaint to make against the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has fought a very noble rearguard action in this matter. Indeed, it has been rather unfair on him that the Government should have put him up in this way to deal with Scottish business, but there have been matters which, if he cares to look through Hansard, he will see—
Lord MELCHETT: What matters?
Lord BURTON: I cannot remember exactly offhand, but I remember that in one answer to me the noble Lord said that he was not aware of the time that it takes to go to the Land Court. Naturally the noble Lord has no experience of this. And why should he? I feel that it is only right that there should be somebody on the Government Front Bench who can speak for Scotland.
Lord COLLISON: May I comment upon the situation now? I understand that this evening we are finishing after Amendment No. 2K, and we are very close to that Amendment. What is now being proposed means that we are going away with a rather unpleasant situation left behind us and I would not want that to happen. Obviously I am no Scot and certainly I am not a lawyer. However, reading the Bill as drafted it seems quite clear, whatever else may be said about the Amendment, that if it is pressed it will make nonsense of the two paragraphs involved. If the tenant serves a counter notice on the landlord, the landlord cannot operate the order unless the Land Court agrees that he should do so. If one eliminates all the words after " quit ", the Land Court has no option but to say, " Yes ", and that makes nonsense of the whole procedure. I am not arguing the rights and wrongs or the weights and counterweights of the proposal. I am simply saying that the case which has been put tip by my noble friend on the Front Bench for not passing the Amendment this evening is perfectly justified. I would not want to go away feeling that we have finished up on a rather offensive note.
With regard to the debate on fish farms, I listened carefully and with very great interest to all that was said, but I had to agree with my own colleague who pointed out that the Agriculture (Miscellaneous

583
Provisions) Bill was not the place to deal with that issue. We spent a very long time upon it. Everything that was said and done then was said and done with very great courtesy. May we, therefore, please, not finish like this? I would suggest to the noble Lord opposite that the proper or nice thing to do would be to withdraw the Amendment at this point. There is another stage.
Lord BALERNO: The Land Court of Scotland is a very revered institution. It has done a lot of good work and has been going for nearly the whole of this century. To put in those sentences which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and my noble friend Lord Burton proposed to delete is an insult to them. I fully support this Amendment and I hope that it will be pressed.
Lord MELCHETT: With great respect, the noble Lord says that this is an insult to the Scottish body which he mentioned. I really do not believe that that can be said. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, made it quite clear that this is a wrecking Amendment. He used the phrase himself. I was going to put it a lot more moderately and point out to him that it made the clause more or less redundant, but the noble Lord has made it quite clear that this is a wrecking Amendment. To try to support the Amendment on the ground that the words in the Bill should not be there seems to me to be unjustified.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
8.20 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 2K:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
" Agricultural holdings in Scotland: variation in rent
. In subsection (3) of section 7 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (which makes provision for the variation of rent of an agricultural holding) for the words " five years " there shall he substituted the words " three years ".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to change, in Scotland, the times for which one can revise the rent from a five year period to a three year period. In days gone by it was not unusual to have a 14 year lease with a
584
break for rent revision after seven years. No one in their right mind would consider such proposals in the present day and age when the value of the pound is changing so quickly. Equally, in 1949 a five year lease was really not unreasonable. Now, however, if we look back to what one could get for a pound in 1971 and what one can get today, one sees that inflation makes a nonsense of five year leases and it seems not unreasonable to bring Scotland into line with England and make three year agreements the order of the day. Here again, the Government seem to have omitted to bring Scotland into line with England. It is extraordinary how they seem to bring Scotland into line with England when it suits their hook but not when it suits other people.
I gather that the argument against this is that this Bill is not the correct vehicle for such an alteration. However, the Government have shot their own feet from under them in this argument. They have produced highly controversial measures into this Bill at a late stage to bring England into line with Scotland. Therefore it seems not unreasonable to bring in a non-controversial Amendment for the purpose of bringing Scotland into line with England on another matter.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the five year term as opposed to the three year term is not the loss of increased rents for two years but the fact that after five years the increase in rent required is so big that the tenant finds great difficulty in gearing himself to such a big increase. It is obviously desirable that the increases should come in easy stages. Having to deal with tenants in England and in Scotland, I see a steadily increasing differential in value between Scottish and English rents. Indeed, I am certain that I should not be out of line if I said that Staffordshire rents are at least one-third higher than similar rents for comparable ground in Inverness-shire. The result of Scottish rents becoming steadily less economical is that the landlord is left with less money to plough back into improvements and repairs, with resulting steady deterioration of the fixed equipment of tenanted agricultural holdings. This must have an adverse effect on agricultural efficiency and I ask the Government seriously to consider accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Having said to the noble Lord that we were not very keen about having all the English law and the Scottish law made similar, he could well turn to us now and say that when it suits us we prefer to have the English law rather than Scottish law, which I freely admit would be a perfectly fair criticism. However, in thinking of this quite dispassionately, as long as the tremendously high inflation goes on it is a big handicap not to be able to make any alterations unless you change the tenant, because then for the new tenant you can make a new lease at a different rental. Rut the number of tenancy changes is so small, and under this Bill will be smaller still, that the matter is really very difficult. While I am not keen about making rentals higher than they ought to be, I think on this occasion it is a handicap that we cannot move in Scotland under five years whereas in England they can move under three years.
However, I understand that there would need to be an alteration to the 1949 Act, which is at the moment what we are governed by, and that on many occasions this suggestion has been put to the Ministry of Agriculture and they have said that it is not feasible. So while I freely admit that on this occasion I am looking to English law rather than to Scottish law, I would ask the Minister to see whether this can be incorporated in the Bill because I know the Department has been approached about it on many occasions.
The Viscount of ARBUTHNOTT: I support this Amendment but I should also like to take this opportunity, which I should have done before, of apologising for not being present during the Second Reading when two statements were made by two of my noble friends, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Balerno, who are here now to hear me say this. I think their comments could be used in the wrong way, and this flows from the fact that in Scotland we normally have a chance to alter the tenancy and the rent only every five years. What they were saying in relation to another part of the Bill was that the security of tenure provisions worked reasonably well in Scotland, or words to that effect. The trouble is that because we have this opportunity to change only every five years that statement
586
cannot really be tested, any more than one could say that they have not worked well.
This leads me again to the temptation that there seems to be in bringing forward all these provisions, first to deal with matters which should be the subject of a much wider review than the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and secondly to bring into line the legislation in the two countries, where the practices are different, flowing from the different legal systems. That confounds my support in principle that in this instance it would not be a bad idea not just to bring the Scottish law into line with English law, but because rents and other tenancy provisions should he reviewed more often than five years in times when agricultural development is moving so fast and inflation has to be taken into consideration as well.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for freely acknowledging that on this Amendment we are all changing sides. I admit that having argued quite strongly that it was wise to bring the law in Scotland into line with the law in England on some of the previous Amendments, I now wish to take a different line.
I certainly do not intend to put forward the argument that I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggested I might, that the Bill was not a suitable vehicle for this sort of change. That may well be the case, but it did not get us very far earlier today with his noble friend Lord Balerno. In any event, it does not seem to me to be the main argument on which the Government's opposition to this Amendment rests—the most persuasive argument, although it may well be a perfectly valid one.
I was sorry that no noble Lord has taken the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken to control inflation. Although it is a little late in the evening and we are discussing the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as inflation has been prayed in aid in moving the Amendment I thought it might have been courteous, if may put it that way, at least to acknowledge that the Government have taken major steps to get inflation under control, and all the signs are that next year we

587
ought to see inflation being cut yet again. I am not saying that that is the only argument I have to deploy against the Amendment, but it is certainly one.
I appreciate as well the arguments put forward that the landlords are disadvantaged as compared to their English counterparts, hut I regret I cannot agree that this new clause should he added to the Bill. The clause was put forward in another place and rejected, and the arguments presented there of course still apply. I understand that the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, along with the Scottish Department, have had discussions over the years about possible amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Acts, including an amendment to the provision for the variation of rent of an agricultural holding. I also understand, although I again proffer my apologies for not actually being a Minister at the Scottish Office, that no agreement with respect to rent variation has yet been reached.
There are three points I should like to make to noble Lords opposite on the Amendment. First, while the minimum period for rent revision at the moment is five years, the information which we have suggests that the average period within which rents are revised is considerably longer than this. According to our latest information, the average period is between six and seven years. This presumably means that in many cases at the moment it has apparently not been found necessary to revise rents as quickly even as every five years which the law now allows.
Secondly, a rent may be revised if the landlord undertakes improvements to the holding for which a rent increase is payable. He does not have to wait until five years have expired before receiving increased rents in return for any expenditure which the landlord has incurred. Thirdly, the proposed change would apply only to leasehold tenure under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act. As noble Lords opposite will know far better than I, there are in Scotland other forms of tenure—landholder and crofting. Landlords of landholder and crofting subjects may only seek revision of rents for periods of seven years, and revision of rents of leasehold subjects every three years in
588
Scotland might, I would suggest, be held to be somewhat anomalous in relation to these other classes of land tenure. I hope for the reasons I have given that, while I confess I have far more sympathy with this Amendment than the others which noble Lords opposite have moved on these clauses of the Bill, they will accept that we cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope they will not press it.
Lord BURTON: Perhaps I can start by joining my noble friend behind me in apologising for not being here for Second Reading. We have had difficulties with the postage and there have been delays in getting notice so that I missed the Second Reading debate. I should have liked to be here. I would have disagreed with my noble friends Lord Balerno and Lady Elliot of Harwood on the question that my noble friend behind me has just spoken about, about the current Bill for security working satisfactorily. but perhaps more of that on Monday.
At this juncture, I should like to take the opportunity of saying again, in protest at what is happening in Scotland, that the Crofters Bill took only one week on its Third Reading after the Report stage, which makes it totally impossible for us in Scotland to deal with business. How can we consult on what has happened on Report when most of the bodies have not even got a copy of the Bill. On this Bill, I received my copy only this morning, although I have been trying for a week to obtain a copy. The House has had a Whitsun Recess. But it is very difficult to carry on business if one cannot get the Papers. No fault, I may say, lies with the Public Bills Office or the Printed Paper Office. But again there is no one from Scotland on the Government Benches, and it appears that the Government are quite ready to throw Scotland into an adverse position vis-à-vis England. This is not reasonable.
The reason I said that I understood this Bill was not a proper vehicle for this Amendment is that I understand that the Scottish Landowners' Federation were informed when they visited Scottish Office officials that this was the reason for not including it, and that is the only reason I put it in. But now the ground seems to have shifted and it is really quite intolerable. I suggest that the argument that rents arc normally revised in Scotland

589
only over a six-year average is largely due to lack of management. In my own case, because rents are low and the estate is becoming totally uneconomic, I have had to cut down on staff. I have got rid of my clerk of works, which throws more work on the factor, and if he gets behindhand with rent adjustments and the like this is not surprising. This has been brought about by other Government legislation, and to make this additional burden seems to me totally unreasonable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: This seems to be a convenient moment to halt the Committee stage, as we have made good progress and have completed Part I. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

POLICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to he printed.
CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL TEES TUNNEL BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  EQUITY: BAN ON MATERIAL TO SOUTH AFRICA
  EQUITY: BAN ON MATERIAL TO SOUTH AFRICA