Sitting of 30 June 1976

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

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Teachers (Employment)
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on teacher unemployment.
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on teacher unemployment.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from students advocating the creation of an adequate number of additional teaching posts with a view to employing all newly-qualified teachers at the beginning of the new school session; and if he will make a statement regarding the nature of his replies.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Representations on teacher unemployment have been made by about 175 students. In addition, I have received two petitions organised by students. The replies have referred to the detailed statement which I made in my reply of 26th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) which outlined a number of courses of
    366
    action that are still being pursued and to the consultations I have since carried out.
    Mrs. Bain: Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that he has come forward with no positive proposals will be greeted with dismay not only by the teaching profession but by parents throughout Scotland who find it difficult to accept a situation in which there is a high level of unemployment amongst teachers while children are being subjected to the development of composite classes? What consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the EIS survey submitted to him earlier this week, which shows that more than 400 schools which previously did not have composite classes now have 2,000 such classes—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not setting a good example with the length of her supplementary question. Hers is the first supplementary question, and I hope that no one will follow her example.
    Mr. Millan: The question of teaching standards was negotiated between teachers' organisations and local authorities. I was not a party to the discussions, but my understanding was that the matter of composite classes was exhaustively discussed in these negotiations.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Labour Government mounted a rescue operation to save the jobs of car workers they earned the admiration of the people of Scotland? It cost £2,000 million to save Leyland and £142 million to save Chrysler. We should not forget the Concorde project which cost £1,000 million. Why cannot we mount a similar operation costing £7·5 million, which I understand is all that is required to put these 2,000 newly-qualified teachers to work?
    Mr. Millan: If we were to compare every new demand for public expenditure with demands that had been made in the past, and if we were to say that because public expenditure had been incurred in one area, there was a case for making similar moneys available in an entirely different area—in this case teacher employment—we would be unable to control public expenditure. I do not feel that the public expenditure difficulties

    367
    with which the Government are faced allow me to accept the kind of easy solution to this problem that my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that his estimate of 2,000 unemployed teachers will not be increased by the further round of public expenditure cuts? Will he ignore the crocodile tears from the Scottish Nationalisation Party, bearing in mind that last night it condoned the spending of £300 million on additional nationalisation when the money could have been used to provide jobs for teachers?
    Mr. Millan: I dare say that when prospective redundancy threatened the shipyards on the Clyde the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would be the first to demand Government intervention and public expenditure. I am, however, answering a Question about teachers, not about shipbuilding.
    Mr. Canavan: Am I right in assuming that even £5 million might be enough to employ the 2,000 teachers threatened with the dole queue? Will my right hon. Friend consider my suggestion for raising that money? If he took the £2·25 million which was not used up by the designated schools scheme and, say, £500,000 from the job creation scheme, together with a couple of million pounds from the defence budget, it would leave only about £250,000 to find. That is about the sum given in aid to the official Opposition parties, including whatever went to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt).
    Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is characteristically ingenious. I can tell him that under the job creation scheme 143 jobs have been approved and proposals involving a further 450 jobs are under consideration.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Secretary of State finally clear up the question whether this whole situation is due to miscalculation by his Department three years ago or to the fact that current public expenditure pressures make it impossible, in the Government's judgment, to realise the projected teacher-pupil ratio intentions of three years ago?
    Mr. Millan: There is no diminution in the projected teacher-pupil ratios in Scot-
    368
    land, which will be better next year than ever before. It might be said that three years ago, when I was not responsible for these matters, the number of students entering colleges should have been considerably reduced. Public expenditure implications are at the heart of this matter, and I have never sought to disguise that fact from the House.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the Secretary of State really saying that Scottish schools are so well staffed that they do not need extra teachers, or is it a question of money? If it is the latter, would it not be better to save money by slowing down the modernisation programme for schools and using it to assist teachers who have already been trained and who, I believe, are needed in our schools?
    Mr. Millan: It is not possible to spend money out of the school building budget—which itself is already under considerable strain—on providing additional teaching places. I do not say that in happier circumstances we could not profitably employ more teachers in Scotland, but despite the restrictions we shall have the best-ever teacher-pupil ratios.

    Open-Air Markets
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the control by local authorities of open-air markets; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Local authorities and retailers have made representations about the control of open-air markets and my right hon. Friend is considering the adequacy of the existing provisions.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of great urgency, particularly in my constituency? The working party on civic government has suggested a form of legislation that would give local authorities sufficient control, but it is not anticipated that this will be introduced until 1979. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will look favourably on the possibility of introducing a minor Bill in the next Session to cover this point?
    Mr. McElhone: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. He has

    369
    been worried about it for some time. Planning authorities may apply to my right hon. Friend for a direction under Article 4 of the General Development Order to bring markets under full planning control. My hon. Friend's own local authority has already done this, but the problem is that market operators can appeal, and this can take a considerable time. I accept what my hon. Friend said about legislation being needed. We want to tackle the planning aspect not in a piecemeal fashion but with other improvements in civil government. We shall consider this subject for next Session, but my hon. Friend should remember that there will be tremendous pressure because of the Assembly Bill.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Before making any concrete proposals for Government legislation on open-air markets, will my hon. Friend remember that this system of trading has been prevalent in England for a long time? Why should not Scottish consumers have the advantage of cheaper goods, just as English consumers have had for a number of years?
    Mr. McElhone: I do not deny that even in Scotland we have a number of open-air markets working satisfactorily, but several local authorities and the Retail Traders' Association have complained about nuisance, noise and traffic problems. The impetus has come from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) is asking for legislation to allow local authorities to make their own judgment on whether markets are a good idea in their areas.

    Kessock Bridge
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the design of and contract for the Kessock Bridge linking Inverness and Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. McElhone: Contractors wishing to tender for the design and construction of the bridge have been invited to submit their names for my right hon. Friend's consideration.
    Mr. Gray: Does the Minister realise that the preliminary pricing and design work could be completed within six months and that the only reason why this
    370
    bridge is not starting in the spring of 1977 is that the Government have committed far too much of their limited budget on half-baked nationalisation schemes, to the detriment of important projects such as the bridge?
    Mr. McElhone: We get this hackneyed message from the Opposition time and again, and it is usually irrelevant to the Question on the Order Paper. The technical, procedural and financial problems involved in the construction of this bridge could take about 18 months to overcome. We do not deny the need for the bridge and our target date is early 1978, though I should add a note of caution and say that this depends on the economic climate at that time.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that, if Scotland had access to the revenue from Scottish oil, the Kessock Bridge would have been built long ago?
    Mr. McElhone: If we were dependent upon the support of the SNP—[Interruption.] I certainly am not. If one thing is clear lo the public in Scotland, it is that the attitude of the SNP is chasing away investment in Scotland.
    Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. The Minister should resign.
    Mr. McElhone: I do not intend to resign before I have answered the next Question.

    Roads (Lothian Region)
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has held recently with Lothian Regional Council about trunk roads in the region.
    Mr. McElhone: The Scottish Development Department has regular contact with the council on trunk road matters.
    Mr. Hutchison: Will the Minister do his best to ensure that the building of roads in Edinburgh does not involve the destruction of good and sound property, as have some of the insane proposals in the past? Will he have a word with the Minister for Transport and the regional council about the possibility of increased

    371
    rail transport on the old suburban railways of Edinburgh?
    Mr. McElhone: I shall certainly pass on to my hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's latter comments. I share his concern about the road programme in Edinburgh. The Lothian Regional Council has recently published a green paper setting out its proposals for the relief of blight created by road programmes in Edinburgh and the council is now considering comments on that document. As trunk roads are not involved, it is a matter for the authority. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy of the green paper from the council. If he is unable to do so, I shall try to help him.
    Mr. Lambie: Will my hon. Friend put pressure on the Secretary of State to meet a deputation that I have arranged with Transport Action Scotland to discuss the provision of a motorway link from North Ayrshire to the motorway system? Is he aware that some of us are beginning to think about organising a petition in the House on the lines of "Come back Willie, all is forgiven" when we see the actions of the present Secretary of State?
    Mr. Millan: I might sign it myself.
    Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has made some of his typically helpful comments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is writing to him on this matter.
    Mr. David Steel: I do not expect an expansion of the road programme in a period of economic restraint, but will the Minister say whether any planning is being done on the need to provide a ring road for Edinburgh?
    Mr. McElhone: I know that the hon. Gentleman has covered a lot of road recently. We wish him some success from his travels. I have noted what he said and I shall pass it on to my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill, who has responsibility for these matters.

    Tree Planting
    Mr. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce measures to encourage the restoration of private sector tree planting to the level reached in 1973–74.
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of tree planting has been established in Scotland between September 1975 and May 1976 in both the Forestry Commission woods and in privately-owned plantations; and how this compares with plantings in each of the last three planting seasons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): Records maintained by the Forestry Commission relate to financial years. Provisional figures for 1975–76 show commission and private sector planting of 41,000 and 23,000 acres respectively. Figures for previous years are given in the commission's annual reports.
    The Government have noted the drop in private sector planting but are not convinced of the need for any new measures at present, although we are keeping a close watch on the situation.
    Mr. Thompson: I have no wish to go back to estate duty and all the jiggery-pokery that went with it, but will the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge him to make alterations in the Finance Bill to encourage private woodland owners to raise the level of planting to that which they are capable of achieving, so as to avoid the loss of 2,000 jobs in rural Scotland, as estimated the other day by the Chairman of the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. Brown: This is only one factor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Do not be so offensive. This is only—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister realise that in theory every remark like that is addressed to me?
    Mr. Brown: I shall try to be more specific in future, Mr. Speaker. This is only one factor, altough not an insignificant one, in the apparent loss of confidence in the private sector, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that changes were made to the capital transfer tax in Schedule 9 to last year's Finance Act. They have given considerable benefit as well as applying the principles of the redistribution of wealth, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that in the next few years forest

    373
    products will be the biggest single drain on our external payments, and that it is now essential for the Government to review the taxation methods which they introduced, which I think were supported by SNP Members? Does he appreciate that it is essential that the Government should listen to the advice that is given to them by the forestry industry, otherwise the drain on our export payments will materially increase and will have a damaging effect on the country as a whole?
    Mr. Brown: I fully appreciate the concern of the Scottish woodland owners. I met them only a couple of weeks ago. I share their concern, and I repeat that we are giving the matter consideration. We are certainly watching the trend. The Government fully recognise the important contribution that the timber industry—both the public sector and the private sector—can make to the balance of trade.
    Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend reject the blandishments of the SNP and its land-owning friends, who want to continue with the tax dodges that have lost so much revenue and good agricultural land to the country in the past? Does he agree that the proper way of proceeding is to expand in the public sector through the Forestry Commission? Finally, will my hon. Friend reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) that the money used for the Chrysler rescue operation should be used to plant trees instead?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend asks so many questions that it is difficult to reply to them. There is an increasing planting programme by the Forestry Commission. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that. As for the use of good agricultural land, he will know that there are excellent arrangements between the Forestry Commission and my Department. I am not aware of any specific problem. In answer to his first question, I find it quite easy to resist the blandishments that come from the SNP.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As long as the Government encourage the Forestry Commission to be put in a position that does not allow it to use its powers of compulsory purchase to obtain suitable land for planting, is it not the case that the
    374
    programme that has been supported by Labour Members to encourage private planting, creating a job-dependent situation, is something that the Government must take seriously? Will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson)?
    Mr. Brown: As usual, the hon. Lady is in a bit of a mess. I find her question almost incomprehensible. Until now the Forestry Commission has been able to acquire most of the land—
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Rubbish.
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry; it is not rubbish. I met the Chairman of the Forestry Commission last Friday and we discussed this matter. On a voluntary basis, and using the market, the Forestry Commission has been successful until now in maintaining enough land by the normal processes of the market. Indeed, it has a bank sufficient—
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.
    Mr. Brown: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Lady said that, if I believe that, I will believe anything. That is not accusing me of lying, but it is coming pretty close to it, and I rather resent that. I repeat that the commission has a satisfactory land bank at the moment, as a result of the normal processes of acquisition.

    Secretary of State (Engagements)
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list his official engagements for 30th June.
    Mr. Millan: I am attending meetings with other Ministers during the day and this afternoon I am meeting a deputation from the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland about the Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his programme a meeting with the spineless nationalist party to thank it for selling its birthright last night without even getting a mess of porridge in return? Does he recognise that he and his colleagues, who at least believe in what they are doing, are held in more respect than the pathetic ragbag

    375
    of cardboard Scotsmen on the nationalist Bench, who have shown that they lack principle, consistency and guts?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman was late in coming into the Chamber—he has obviously been working on that question. I do not think I need make any additional comment.
    Mr. Grimond: When the Secretary of State is considering his engagements for the next six months or so, will he consider having further discussions with various bodies, such as the local authority organisations in Scotland, which are rather worried about what their position will be when the Scottish Assembly is set up? As we have had no general conference on these matters, there are still bodies—the universities are one group, and some local authorities are another—which would value further discussions with the Secretary of State on their position under his proposals.
    Mr. Millan: I am not aware of that. I am meeting COSLA, for another reason, within a fortnight. If it wanted to speak to me about the devolution proposals, it would tell me that and I should be happy to meet it. As for the universities, I can say through the Scottish Office, and through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, that we have had quite a deal of discussions with the universities in recent weeks.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the Secretary of State were to meet the Opposition Chief Whip, he might care to ask him why a Conservative Member was absent last night in the important vote. Even if the SNP had voted with the Opposition, the Opposition would not have carried the day. More important, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that today is a day when many Scottish schoolchildren will be leaving school without any employment prospects. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an immediate appointment with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask him to reflate the economy so that many of these children will be able to find the jobs that they need?
    Mr. Millan: We had a debate on youth unemployment on Monday of last week. During that debate I made a number of statements. I do not recollect that the hon. Gentleman was present on
    376
    that occasion. I do not think I have anything to add at present.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is late in the day, on 30th June, to ask about his official engagements? However, is it possible, even at this late stage and this late hour, for my right hon. Friend to visit Orkney and Shetland and to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman's constituents that under no consideration will they accept separation from the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Millan: I am aware of the views that they have expressed—and very interesting views they are too. Even with the improved transport services that have been provided under this Government, however, it would not be possible for me to visit Orkney and Shetland today and to be back in the half hour that would be required to meet the two-line Whip that applies to the Bill to be discussed later today.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that this is 30th June and that the Chairman of the Forestry Commission has retired today? The fact that he was going was known for 18 months. In view of the importance of the forestry industry, why has no appointment been made, or no successor found? When will a successor be found?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. and learned Gentleman's question provides me with a convenient opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Taylor for the work that he has done as Chairman of the Forestry Commission. The announcement of his successor will be made very soon. I am sure that it will be a nomination that will have the hon. and learned Gentleman's support.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but we must move on.

    Secretary of State (Visits)
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to pay an official visit to Perth.
    Mr. Fairbairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to pay an official visit to Kinross and West Perthshire.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will pay an official visit to West Stirlingshire.
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Tarbert, Loch Fyne.
    Mr. Millan: I have no plans to visit any of these places, but I visited Perth recently to address the STUC Annual Congress.
    Mr. Crawford: When the Secretary of State gets around to visiting Perth, will he carry on up the A9 to Inverness? Is he aware that about 100 miles of that road are still not up to standards that would be acceptable on a similar road in England? The accident that happened the other day proves that. Given the cost of the upgrading of the extra 100 miles—about £1 million a mile—and the fact that that cost is equivalent to about 10 days' worth of the revenues from Scottish oil, the Scottish Office must get on with the upgrading of that road immediately.
    Mr. Millan: I do not know where all these revenues are coming from, but they are being spent several times over practically every day by suggestions from Opposition Members. As for the A9, a stretch of the improved road was opened only this week by my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Stirling had a visit at the weekend from the SNP disguised as Scottish patriots at Bannockburn but that following pressure from the trade unions it has now adopted a new posture, a sitting-on-the-fence posture, with regard to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? As the SNP's former allies, the Tories, are now reported to be referring to SNP Members as "rats", is it not obvious that the Tories, who once objected to the late Nye Bevan referring to them as political vermin, now consider that term more appropriate for the SNP?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not like—nor does the House—terms of abuse applied to groups or individuals. As for particular types of animals or vermin, it is hard for me to distinguish. I know that the hon. Gentleman was asking a question, but I thought that there was an implication that people were not what they ought to be.
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was merely referring to reports of what Tories had said,
    378
    according to Press Association reports this morning.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Sin does not become virtue.
    Mr. Millan: After all that, I have forgotten the question. It seemed to be something to do with some fraternal or fractricidal argument taking place between the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party. I do not want to intervene in that.
    Mr. Fairbairn: When the Secretary of State visits Kinross and West Perthshire, he will get a very kind welcome. He will see a very great deal of prime agricultural land that is presently being built on around various towns and villages. In view of the necessity for agricultural land, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the terms of Circular 77/75 issued by his Department are carried out in all circumstances to the letter, to ensure that house building does not take place on flat, good agricultural land that is necessary for agricultural purposes?
    Mr. Millan: The terms of that circular certainly stand. We wish to see them implemented. Some of these matters raise questions of planning applications, and so on, on which it is not really open for me to comment. I think that the particular instance that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind in his constituency is not, at least at present, a matter for me.
    Mr. MacCormick: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate my deep disappointment at the fact that the Secretary of State has not decided to visit Tarbert, Loch Fyne. In view of the disgraceful statement made on Monday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the disgraceful let-down of the whole fishing policy of the United Kingdom, let alone that of Scotland, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to come to Tarbert? If he cannot now spell out exactly what fishing limit for the West of Scotland the Government have in mind with which to go into the negotiations, will he come to Tarbert, Loch Fyne, and tell the fishermen there exactly what limit the Government have decided for the West of Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about fishing. I

    379
    do not need to go to Tarbert to tell the fishermen of Scotland—
    Mr. MacCormick: You do not dare to go to Tarbert.
    Mr. Millan:—what I think about the present situation, because I met the representatives of all the Scottish fishermen's associations, not to mention the fishmongers and a number of other people, on Monday afternoon.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on Monday afternoon, will he say what their reaction was to the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Millan: We had—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman—a very amicable meeting.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: As the Secretary of State lives in my constituency, when he visits Edinburgh will he say what hope he can give to parents there that the education system will take account of their wishes regarding the choice of secondary schools? Is this entirely a matter for the administrators of education, who now outnumber teachers in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's latter observation is ridiculously inaccurate. I am sorry that a chartered accountant is not able to do his arithmetic properly. As regards the hon. Gentleman's other question, he has a Written Question on the Order Paper, and I think that it is marked for answer today. He will get an answer on that.

    Robroyston Hospital
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the future of Robroyston Hospital.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): In the light of consultations with the various interested bodies, the Greater Glasgow Health Board has reaffirmed its earlier recommendation that the hospital should be closed. The matter is now under consideration, and I shall let my hon. Friend know the outcome as soon as possible.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a calamitous decision
    380
    on the part of the Greater Glasgow Health Board, which has not been famed for the brilliance and foresight of its decisions in the past? Does he realise that Eastern District Hospital and Foresthall Hospital are on the scrapping list, that Stobhill Hospital is full, and that the closure of Robroyston would be a grave blow to the people and patients in that area?
    Mr. Ewing: It is important that my hon. Friend should recognise the very serious difficulties surrounding Robroyston Hospital, with the breakdown of the main sewer system and the fantastic cost of repairing that system. We have taken into account all the points made by my hon. Friend in his supplementary question. I assure him that when I make a decision on this matter all these points will be for consideration.
    Mr. Craigen: What consideration did my hon. Friend give to the points in the Ruchill Hospital inquiry report about the very substantial build-up that will occur in the demand for geriatric provision in the north of the city? What guidance has his Department given to the area health board about consultations with the staff involved in the hospital?
    Mr. Ewing: As in all parts of Scotland, I think that there will be a build-up in the demand for geriatric facilities, but my hon. Friend should appreciate that this area of Glasgow has 25 per cent. of all geriatric places available at present, so it is not under-provided for. Our present consultations with the staff will continue before I finally make a decision on this matter.

    Scottish Development Authority
    Mr. Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will define the proposed division of responsibilities between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Assembly in regard to the operations of the Scottish Development Authority.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I have nothing to add to the information given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 25th May.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that the Government are heading for what can only be described as a proper

    381
    "bourach" in this matter? If the Scottish Development Authority is to be controlled by the Assembly, it presumably means that its spending priorities must be controlled by the Assembly. If the Secretary of State has coincidental powers, there will inevitably be friction. Even if guidelines are established, as the Lord President has suggested, they will be Westminster guidelines and will probably exacerbate this friction, if nothing else.
    Mr. Mackenzie: I thought that the statement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council received a great welcome from the people of Scotland who believe that responsibility for the agency should be devolved to the Assembly. I do not at this stage see any likelihood of friction developing, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. Bray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the degree of independence in the operation of the agency will depend overwhelmingly upon its borrowing power and the authorisation of this by the Assembly or the Treasury? What consideration will be given to the Lay-field Report in relation to local finance generally within the time scale of the Government's decision on devolution?
    Mr. Mackenzie: I do not think that my hon. Friend's question on Layfield has anything to do with the transfer of powers to the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Crawford: The SNP is, and always has been, in favour of the establishment of the SDA. Will the hon. Gentleman give the agency an annual budget of £3 million? The present budget is not good enough.
    Mr. Mackenzie: I do not know whether this money is to come out of the oil revenues, together with the money for increases in old-age pensions and everything else. As my right hon. Friend and I have said, there is no shortage of money for projects put forward by the agency.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that while there are many matters that can, and should, properly, totally and sensibly be devolved to the Scottish Development Agency, for the purposes of the economy and industry Britain is one integrated unit?
    Mr. Mackenzie: The Lord President made it clear in his statement to the House that while we were anxious to transfer responsibility for the Scottish Development Agency to the Assembly we still wish to do this within the context of a United Kingdom. We see great advantages in that for the people of Scotland in an industrial sense. That is why we want to preserve the industrial integrity of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Buchan: In view of the points made in the Standing Committee on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and reiterated by the Lord President last night, in relation to a Scottish dimension in that Bill, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the proposal put forward by the SNP for a centralised bureaucratic body is rejected by the STUC, which prefers a more direct relationship between the main body and a good democratic local management in that industry?
    Mr. Mackenzie: I take the point made by my hon. Friend. We are concerned that in the shipbuilding industry we should have something that is of benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he need not worry about this matter, because there will not be an Assembly, because the Bill will not get through this House?
    Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure that in the days ahead—perhaps long days—we shall listen to the long speeches that we are accustomed to hearing from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure, too, that he will seek to persuade us, and we shall listen to his statements with great care and respect.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the problem is potentially worse even than indicated by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston)? If the Government's proposals in their present form are implemented, responsibility for industry in Scotland willl be divided three ways—between the Assembly, the Scottish Office and the Department of Industry. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a nonsense solution for a nonsense problem, and that the most appropriate action for the Government to take is to reconsider their whole approach to industrial matters as they affect Scotland?
    Mr. Mackenzie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statements that have been made from both sides of the House over many years, he would have appreciated that there is an anxiety to give the people of Scotland more say in their own affairs in an industrial sense, and that is something we have done and are continuing to do.

    Cattle Subsidies
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the reasons for the long delay in payment of cattle subsidies this year; and what steps are being taken to avoid such delay in future.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not accept that there was a long delay in making this year's payments. Overall, the time taken was about the same as in previous years. There was, however, a particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in establishing the precise acreage available to a number of occupiers. This has been largely overcome and should not delay payments in future.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been long delays in making payments? I have had numerous complaints about this over the year. These delays have caused intense inconvenience and hardship to crofters in my constituency, who have had to pay early in the year for imported foodstuffs because of the conditions last winter. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that next year these payments will be made at the proper time, as they were in previous years?
    Mr. Brown: There has not been undue delay, but I accept that within the hon. Gentleman's constituency—[Interruption.] I wish that members of the SNP would listen. I am trying to be helpful on this occasion, at least. A particular problem arose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. A new form was introduced, which involved precise acreages. A high percentage of claim forms were inaccurately completed and we had to send additional staff to the hon. Gentleman's constituency to get the matter sorted out. Consequently, there was some unusual delay in some of the crofting counties, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, having
    384
    now received the necessary information, there should be no delays in future payments.
    Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the thanks of the small farmers in Ross and Cromarty for the expeditious way in which his Department handled the cases that I represented to him, but will he at the same time bear in mind that considerable hardship was caused to many small farmers, and that any interruption of the cash flow on small farms is a serious matter indeed?
    Mr. Brown: I accept that. I received representations from many hon. Members, and I hope that they were treated with urgency, because I accept that there was a problem. We now have an improved system of payment, but it involves a new form. The date for receiving claims was a month later than in previous years. I can only plead that there were teething problems in the system, which I think we have now got sorted out.

    Rabies
    Mr. Corrieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that adequate safeguards exist in Scotland to control the entry of animals into Scotland that may carry rabies.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Yes, Sir. The anti-rabies legislation that we introduced in 1974 provides effective control over the entry into Great Britain of dogs, cats and other rabies-susceptible animals.
    Mr. Corrie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the foreign fishing boats fishing off the coast of Scotland have animals on board, and that these boats come into small local ports? Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to get in touch with the countries that have boats fishing in our waters and tell them of the regulations at home before the boats get here, rather than have problems arise when they come into our ports?
    Mr. Brown: There is a general recognition amongst most mariners or skippers of their obligations under international regulations, including this one. If the hon. Gentleman has a feeling of alarm, and lets me have details, I shall see what I can do to help.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Scotland's land frontier is particularly vulnerable? What steps is he taking to establish a cordon sanitaire on the Scottish-English border?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether that is meant to be funny. I am not sure, either, whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is some difference between rabies that might come from England and rabies that might come from elsewhere. This is a serious subject, and we have a working party, on which Scottish local authorities and my Department are represented, dealing with it. In general, all the authorities are well acquainted with the problem and know what to look for.

    Primary Schools (Troon)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make increased public funds available to the Strathclyde Region in order to increase the number of primary school places in the Troon area over the next five years.
    Mr. McElhone: The regional council has not asked for additional capital investment for this purpose, and I would expect any extra accommodation that may be needed to be provided from the council's annual allocation for school building.
    Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kyle and Carrick District Council has given planning permission for an additional 800 private houses and that the Scottish Development Department has given the district council permission to build 120 extra council houses in the Troon area? Will my hon. Friend arrange a meeting between the Strathclyde Education Committee and the district council to discuss the question of increasing the number of primary school places in Troon? His answer shows that the amount of money allocated for primary school places in Troon over the next five years is totally inadequate.
    Mr. McElhone: It is not my duty to arrange a meeting between the regional council and the district council in Ayrshire. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward the constraints on
    386
    public expenditure he excluded roofs over heads. That is to say, where places are needed for school pupils, primary or secondary, they are excluded from any constraints on public expenditure. On the other point, with regard to the next five years, the amounts and allocations for the years following 1976–77 have not yet been settled, and there is still sufficient time for the regional authority, which has educational responsibility, to submit its estimates to the Department.
    Mr. Younger: Would it not be better for the Minister to be quite open about this and admit that there is a great need for more expenditure on education and training of teachers throughout Scotland and that the Government, through their incompetence, have run out of money and cannot provide it?
    Mr. McElhone: I must repeat what my right hon. Friend mentioned a few minutes ago. We have more teachers in schools than we have ever had in the history of Scottish education, and we have the best pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had in our Scottish schools. As for accommodation, I repeat that the question of roofs over heads, where places are needed, is separate from the question of constraints on public expenditure. It is up to the Strathclyde Region to submit its application when it knows what the rolls are in the various areas mentioned. I can assure both the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that places will be found for the children that they are worried about.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Before giving any more commitments on public expenditure will the Minister come to Glasgow, or contact Glasgow today, where the Secretary of State gave a commitment that we would have a Bridgeton scheme at no cost to the ratepayers of Glasgow and yet it was revealed this morning that the Glasgow and regional ratepayers would have to pay a lot more?
    Mr. McElhone: I must confess that I am not aware of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. All I know is that Bridgeton is not in Troon, and that is what the Question was all about.

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next hopes to meet the Scottish Economic Council.
    Mr. Millan: The last meeting of the council, of which I am chairman, was on 4th June, and the next meeting will be held on 10th September.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State, at one of these meetings, ask the council to consider the question of the slowness of the Scottish economy to recover from the present recession? Will he ask it to prepare proposals to encourage industrial development and investment in Scotland, and not leave this matter entirely to the Treasury to handle?
    Mr. Millan: At the meetings of the Scottish Economic Council one item that is always on the agenda is the current economic situation in Scotland. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the kind of matters in which he is interested were discussed at the last meeting and will be discussed again in September. In regard to the wider matters, I think that a published document and certain statements that are being made today are relevant to them.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend and I took part in the meeting on 28th June between Ministers and the main representative organisations of the United Kingdom fishing industry. Consultations with the industry will continue at ministerial or official level, as appropriate.
    Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister realise that the renegotiation of the fishing limits is probably the most important single issue for the fishing industry over the last decade and that the Government have made a hash of it? Is he further aware that giving in on the negotiating position in respect of 100 miles, and then abandoning his promise to stand on a 50-mile fishing limit, is a shame-
    388
    ful betrayal of the British fishing industry?
    Mr. Brown: That is rather flowery language, but it does not accord with the facts. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Luxemburg only yesterday, which emphasised the Government's determination to secure what are reasonable fishing limits in all the circumstances.
    Mr. Watt: When the Minister next meets the representatives of the fishing industry, does he expect to be able to tell them who will patrol our 200-mile limits and when the orders are to be placed for suitable boats and aircraft to do the policing?
    Mr. Brown: That all depends—[Interruption.] If the rabble on the SNP Bench will listen while I reply to the question that has been asked, they may appreciate that it all depends on when we meet the industry. We are well aware that there is a whole host of problems afflicting the industry at the moment. Certainly the question of the protection services is one to which we are giving consideration.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that what matters is not the extent of the limits but the amount of fish that may be caught by the British fleet and the job protection of people involved in the industry, and that these must be the two prime concerns—not any strange virility symbol of 200, 100 or 50 miles?
    Mr. Brown: I agree. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, has already been in touch with the employers' association in the fishing industry about the present problems of redundancy and to see how job security for the future can be achieved.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Minister confirm or deny the reports that the Government regard a 12-mile limit for the west coast of Scotland as adequate for the needs of the Scottish fishing industry? Does he acknowledge that this is causing the greatest concern and anxiety among fishermen along the whole coast of Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: I certainly accept that there has been concern. We have already

    389
    said what our position is—that it would be up to 50 miles, and possibly could be 12 miles in some areas.
    Hon. Members: Where?
    Mr. Brown: It depends where the fish are, actually. I assure the hon. Member that we are well aware of the parts of the waters around our coast that are most prolific in fish. That is one of the considerations that we have very much in mind.

    POLICE (COMPLAINTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the rôle of Crown counsel in dealing with complaints against the police.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the letter that I have sent to my right hon. and learned Friend, concerning the case of one of my constituents who filed a complaint about alleged police assault, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a person complaining in a case of this nature should have a right to know why charges are not being proceeded with? In the case of my constituent, will he try to ensure that a satisfactory explanation is given to him so that justice is not only done but seen to be done?
    The Lord Advocate: It is not the practice of my Department to give reasons why it has decided not to prosecute in a particular case. If my hon. Friend considered the matter he would realise that in many cases the reason would be non-availability of evidence, or the quality of such evidence as was available, and it would hardly be in the public interest to have a public discussion of such matters.

    ROTARY TOOLS (TRIAL COSTS)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Lord Advocate if he has yet completed his inquiries into the costs involved to public funds in the recent Rotary Tools case in Glasgow.
    The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir. The total sum paid in respect of Crown witnesses was £2,051·16. This sum includes
    390
    the expenses at both the precognition and trial stages. One procurator fiscal depute carried out the investigation into the case on my behalf, with the assistance of police officers. Clerical and typing staff were also involved. It is impossible to quantify the cost of their work on this case. These are matters for which I am ministerially responsible.
    I have ascertained that the sum paid in respect of jurors in this case was £3,432·05.
    The foregoing figures do not include defence expenses.
    Mr. Taylor: Since the defence expenses are what we are really concerned about, will the Lord Advocate make an endeavour to find out what has been the cost to the taxpayer, through legal aid, of the defence in this case? Will he investigate the possibility of trials of this sort being carried out at less cost to total public funds?
    The Lord Advocate: On the last point, one should look at this matter in context. This trial lasted about five weeks. That is unusual in a Scottish trial on indictment, whereas south of the border trials of that length, and a great deal longer, are relatively commonplace. For all that, we endeavour to keep the length of trials in Scotland, and the cost to the public, at a minimum. I think that on the whole we do this very successfully. In regard to the earlier part of the question, the position is that the Legal Aid Fund is independently administered by the bodies authorised to administer it under statute, and is not, therefore, a matter of ministerial responsibility.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this case clearly portrays once more the high cost of one of the less acceptable faces of capitalism—in other words, the high cost of private enterprise?
    The Lord Advocate: I would say, of course, that the crimes involved, and what was done that led to the trial, certainly amounted to something that was contrary to the public interest, and contrary to the economic interest. The figures that I have disclosed indicate that the public expenditure involved in setting matters right was comparatively small. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr.

    391
    Buchanan) raised this matter with me before the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) tabled his Question, and I hope to reply to my hon. Friend very shortly.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please include, in his reply to that letter, the cost of legal aid whether or not he has ministerial responsibility? I take it that he has the facility for acquiring that information, because it is the greatest single expense of the trial and one that we should look at closely.
    The Lord Advocate: I appreciate the anxiety of many hon. Members in this matter. I cannot undertake to obtain that information but I certainly undertake to do the best I can. The difficulty is that the fund is managed and the moneys are disbursed under statutory authority, and the money comes from public funds. The difficulty is that the accountability for it has all been provided for in statute, and it is difficult to break down the bulk figures. However, I shall see what can be done.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the cost of legal aid per case or per hour, or however one analyses it, for cases in Scotland is conducted in a much more economic way than it is in England? Does he not also agree that, having delegated the administration to the Law Society, a great saving to public funds is achieved, because the Law Society carried out all the administration involved? Does he not also agree that the Law Society would no doubt be prepared to provide this information, but that it simply will not yet be available?
    The Lord Advocate: I entirely accept the latter point that the hon. Lady made, that these figures are not yet available. I share her tribute to the Law Society for the way in which it carried out a public service in this regard. Beyond that I do not think I can go.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SENIOR OFFICERS' RETIREMENT)
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House. As the House knows, three of its most senior servants are leaving the service of the House today, or indeed have already left. Sir David
392
Lidderdale, Clerk of the House, leaves today; Sir Alexander Gordon Lennox, Serjeant-at-Arms, has already left; and Mr. David Holland, Librarian, leaves today. I am sure that the House would not wish me to let this occasion go by without giving some opportunity to say farewell to individuals who have served the House so long and so faithfully.
The House will not expect me to speak at length on this matter, but there is one point of substance that I would wish to make. The parliamentary pressures which we have all felt in recent times do not affect Members alone. Very heavy responsibilities are borne by those who serve the House, and I think that we should all recognise that under such conditions the burden shouldered by heads of departments today, whether Clerk of the House, Serjeant-at-Arms or Librarian, are much heavier than those carried by their predecessors in earlier years. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can say that again."] I am not going to.
In recognising this fact of present-day parliamentary life, I know that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will wish to join me in thanking Sir David Lidderdale, Sir Alexander Gordon Lennox and Mr. David Holland for their outstanding services over the years and in wishing them well during their retirement. They will take with them the respect, gratitude and affection of the House in a way which cannot have been surpassed, if indeed it was ever equalled, by their predecessors in times past.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): It has been the custom of the House that a motion should be tabled on such occasions as this when distinguished servants of the House leave us. It is certainly our wish that such a motion should be tabled and we shall certainly put it down at an appropriate time. One of the reasons why we did not think it easy to do so today is that Sir Alexander Gordon Lennox cannot be here today and we would wish him to be here when we make our tribute to him also. We shall therefore do that at an early stage and we shall inform the House of our intentions.
Perhaps I could add to what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I will follow your example in not rehearsing what we may

393
say later but certainly in times of stress and difficulty in this House we should appreciate that we owe even more to the servants of the House than we possibly do on other occasions. As one who has spent most of his time on the Back Benches of this House rather than on any Front Bench, I believe that the Back Benchers owe even more to the servants of the House than do the Front Benches.
I therefore wish to join in the thanks which you have expressed, but I repeat that there will be an occasion on the tabling of the motion for us to express our thanks in the manner in which it has been done on previous occasions.
Mr. Grimond Mr. Grimond rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will call the right hon. Gentleman in a moment if he wishes, but, in view of what has been said, I wonder whether the House would like to keep its tributes until the motion is tabled.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the attack on inflation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has today laid before the House a White Paper which sets out the Government's general strategy for the second year of the attack on inflation. The White Paper reflects the Government's recent agreement with the TUC on a further period of strict voluntary pay restraint for the 12 months from 1st August. The details were announced by my right hon. Friend in the House on 5th May; and the agreement has since been approved by an overwhelming majority at the TUC Special Congress on 16th June. There will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper fully in the House next week.
The White Paper stresses the importance of building up British industry. It goes on to explain that certain changes in the Price Code are essential. I have today laid before the House a consultative document setting out in detail the
394
Price Code modifications which the Government propose.
I have already consulted widely on both sides of industry about the modifications proposed to the code. There is general agreement that the overriding objective to be borne in mind should be to encourage new investment, higher output and more jobs. It is common ground that if firms are to raise the funds they need to favour high investment and output, some changes in the existing Price Code are necessary. It is with that objective in mind that the Government have formulated the prices package.
The new code will continue to be based upon the control of proposed price increases, and upon the control of the profit margins of enterprises. The Government have been pressed to abandon these controls, but have refused to do so.
The main changes are: first, an increase from 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. in the rate of investment relief; secondly, new provisions relating to the depreciation of assets and to the appreciation of stocks, which go some way to offset the damaging effects of inflation; thirdly, a redefinition of the categories into which firms fall, so as to take account of inflation; fourthly, measures to moderate the present disincentive effect of the code on saving costs and increasing output, including the abolition of the productivity deduction, which has little impact now owing to pay restraint; fifthly, other measures to reduce the administrative burden on companies of operating the code.
I have asked the Price Commission to monitor carefully the reliefs in respect of investment, depreciation and stocks to ensure that they are not abused. Price Commission monitoring ensures that investment relief applies only to investment in domestic manufacturing and service industry and in distribution, not to property and overseas investment.
The code will affect different firms in different ways. Which changes in the code are used depends on each firm's pricing and marketing situation. Allowing for the slow recovery of the domestic market which makes it difficult and in some cases impossible to increase prices even when increases are allowed by the code, the Government estimate that the effect of the proposed changes will be to

395
add about 1 per cent. to the RPI over the coming 12 months. I am inviting the interests concerned to give me their comments on the proposals by 16th July.
Two Orders have today been laid before the House in draft. That laid by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer extends until 31st July 1977 the operation of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 and of certain sections of Part II of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. That laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment adds the new counter-inflation White Paper to Cmnd. 6151 for the purposes of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. When the former Order, that relating to the Act, has been affirmed in both Houses and made by the Privy Council, and after the completion of my consultations on the Price Code, I will lay before the House an Order made under the Counter-Inflation Act and containing the new code, which will be effective from 1st August.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I thank the right hon Lady for her statement, which she has entitled "The Attack on Inflation", and reaffirm that the Conservative Opposition believe that that attack is not broadly enough based and is, therefore, unlikely fully to succeed. The relaxations under the Price Code which she has announced will be welcomed as far as they go, particularly as the operation of the Price Code over the past two years has significantly contributed to the level of unemployment and will continue to do so.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that for many companies these reliefs will come far too late for the many people who are already out of work, that they appear to fall far short of the urgent needs of business and industry and do not bear any relation to the rosy rhetoric of the Prime Minister at the CBI annual dinner?
Will the right hon. Lady tell the Prime Minister and the TUC, as I am sure she knows, that it is not purely a question of industry's ability to finance itself but of industry's confidence in future profitability that will determine future levels of investment, and that this has not adequately been restored by the amendments which she has announced today?
396
Finally, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what would be the difference between the estimated effect on the RPI of the proposed amendments and of the total abolition of the Price Code? Return on capital is now running at 2½ per cent. How much will this return be raised by the proposed amendments she has just outlined?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I did not think that I would win the commendation of the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). I never do. I am sure she will appreciate that anyone who deals with this area has to walk a very difficult tightrope between the importance of restoring confidence in industry and the importance of sustaining the counter-inflation policy as far as pay and prices are concerned. It would not be in the interests of industry for the pay and prices policy to disappear because of what would appear to be an attempt by industry to ask for too much for itself. That is not in the interests of any part of the community in what is bound to be a delicate and difficult operation.
The hon. Lady referred to confidence in industry. Before the Labour Government came to power there was no investment relief of any kind in the Price Code. There was no recognition of the importance of investment. The Labour Government made an exception for investment and have now improved upon that exception.
The hon. Lady's question about the effect of the abolition of the Price Code on the RPI is unanswerable, because it depends on the level of the market. I do not believe that the CBI's optimistic assessment some months ago that the effect of removing the Price Code would be as little as 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on the RPI can be justified by what we know of the probable effects of removing the Price Code. What I propose is a reasonable compromise which is directed towards increasing output, jobs and investment and as such it should commend itself to the House.
Mr. Grimond: We welcome the emphasis which the right hon. Lady put upon increased investment. If we are to get increased investment does she agree that we must have continuity in Government policy and an end to constant Government interference in industry? It

397
would be of great advantage if we could have a definition of how she sees the mixed economy working, and where divisions are to be drawn between the public sector and the private sector. At present the public sector is ever increasing at the expense of the private sector.
Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the incentives offered in her statement will be sufficient? Do I understand that increments subject only to 12 months' delay are to be granted, in spite of the Government restraint on incomes and regardless of efficiency?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of continuity for industry, whether it be public or private, because investment cannot be maintained on a one-year or two-year basis. In the Price Code amendment, for the first time we have indicated to industry, both public and private, that the investment relief will be sustained in any new form of price control there may be, whatever shape it takes, after 1977, because we recognise the significance of what the right hon. Gentleman said in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the public sector—private sector pattern. Once again in the code we have embraced exactly the same restraints on the public sector and the private sector and have adopted the same safeguards for both. The only distinction is that, for obvious reasons, investment relief does not apply to the public sector, but the reliefs for appreciation and depreciation do apply to the public sector.
Where private sector industry can be encouraged to finance its own investment within guidelines which are broadly acceptable to the community—that is to say, where there is no leak into undesirable forms of investment—this relieves public expenditure and is worth while.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government's policy for bringing down inflation has been due to the co-operation of the trade union movement in restraining incomes? Is there not an obligation on Government to try to keep prices down and to offset the difficulties created by the common agricultural policy? Will the Government consider
398
maintaining food subsidies and give their highest priority to bringing down unemployment, which is what the trade unions want?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that what we are trying to do in the Price Code is to link the reliefs that exist very closely to investment and employment. The consultative document shows how closely that attempt is being made. We have built into the Price Code singularly effective forms of monitoring which determine that the reliefs given will go for the purposes that have been agreed, and for no other, both for investment and for stock appreciation and depreciation, and that is an assurance that the general public can reasonably demand.
My hon. Friend referred to food subsidies and the common agricultural policy. I remind him that food subsidies this year will continue at the rate of over £400 million. As to the common agricultural policy, the Government have put the greatest possible emphasis on dealing with areas where structural surpluses arise from exceptionally high prices. The Government are very much concerned with those.
On unemployment, I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that it has been shown to us in some degree of detail that there are areas where the code has conflicted with the desire to maximise employment and that is one of the factors we have borne in mind.
Mr. Neubert: How is it possible under the Government's prices policy for a monopoly public industry such as the Post Office to push up its prices so severely that it makes a profit of £250 million, while private industry languishes and men are made redundant through lack of resources to carry it through the recession and to increase investment?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that certain firms in the private sector, like the Post Office, from time to time make exceptional profits. The Price Code exists to make sure that such firms, whether in the public sector or the private sector, have either to hold prices or to reduce them to bring them within the reference level which applies to everyone else.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for confirming what has been on the news bulletins every hour since 9 o'clock this morning. On the assumption that she and not her Department leaked this information, may I be assured that although she has discussed this matter with various parties which she might name, she has not troubled to discuss it with Members of Parliament? In future will she consult Labour Back Benchers and possibly Back Benchers on both sides of the House before she makes a statement?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Whoever may or may not have leaked any information, no leaks came from me. I spoke to no one about the changes before I came to the House nor do I intend to speak to the Press until after the statement today. My hon. Friend is being a little unfair.
I laid on two meetings for my colleagues and it is their responsibility that, mainly, they did not turn up.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: When the right hon. Lady has further consultations will she review again the question of the fiscal allowances that she proposes for investment which will not apply overseas. The key to employment and to the maintenance of the export-led boom is investment in the proper servicing of British goods overseas. Will she look at that carefully in future discussions?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. There is no division in the House about the importance both of exports, the after-service of exports and of investment. Whatever else may divide the House, we are on common ground there. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that in the proposals that we are making in the Price Code consultative document, we are making a specific concession for exports to enable firms to increase and service exports without that affecting their unit costs of production. That is a detailed matter, but it will be of considerable benefit to firms that try to increase their exports.
Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend says that the proposals that she has put forward are to encourage new investment and that there will be a monitoring of new investment relief. What will happen if the investment does not take place?
400
What guarantee has she that the extra reliefs will lead to new investment by the various companies?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am happy to explain the situation to my hon. Friend. Investment relief will be granted only when investment takes place. If a firm announces that it proposes to invest but does not undertake that investment, it will receive no concessions in terms of prices. Indeed, it will be obliged to give back any concessions made in the light of statements about its investment plans. More than that, any firm which wants to claim investment relief must give details of the level and nature of its proposed investment, it must compare that with the preceding three years and it has to give a report on its investment after six months to show that its plans are being carried out. It will have to make a further submission at the end of the year and will finally have to take the whole position up to within six weeks of when the report is made.
I am convinced, in the light of the last year's experience, that we have, in this, produced a system of monitoring which is virtually completely foolproof. It enables the Government to determine that any relief on prices will go on investment for home manufacturing and home distribution and will not leak into overseas property and investment overseas as it did in the earlier investment boom.
Mr. John Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that I would have preferred the elimination of the price control mechanisms? Is she aware that I am glad to see that the proposal incorporates some relief for stock appreciation and like matters? Will she assure the House that that represents an acceptance of the principle involved, and that when the committee appointed to look into inflation accounting has reported the effect of its report will be incorporated in any price control which at that time may, regrettably, still exist?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: On the reliefs proposed for depreciation and for stock appreciation the Government have endeavoured to take account of at least some, although not all, of the effects of inflation. What we are doing is making a crude move towards Sandilands, although it cannot be a detailed move

401
because the accounting profession has not yet accepted a single set of rules for that purpose. What we are proposing at this stage is a crude uprating for the purposes of depreciation and stock appreciation which will take account of a substantial part of the effect that inflation has had on accounts in the last two years.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will accept a 1 per cent. rise in the RPI if they can be sure that her Department and the Price Commission are successful in monitoring price increases by trigger-happy firms, private or public? Does she accept that her earlier answer to the effect that sometimes firms, whether the Post Office or those in the private sector, make exceptional profits will not be sufficient for my constituents? If exceptional profits are made, will she undertake to examine whether there have been any unjustified price increases in the past?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The estimated 1 per cent. on the RPI, which is the result of a fairly flat market, could be justified only in a situation in which inflation is still powerful if it can be shown to have a direct effect on economic activity. I believe that it can. The purpose of the relief is to encourage the recovery of the economy that we badly need if we are to deal with employment. I hope that his constituents will take the proposal in that spirit. My hon. Friend referred to the position of the Post Office. The position is the same for public and private sector firms. Where an enterprise makes an exceptional profit it must either hold its prices to allow a normal erosion of costs to bring it back within profit margins, or it must reduce its prices. We shall stick to that rule in both the public and the private sector.
Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Lady agree with paragraph 35 of the Chancellor's White Paper, where it says:
"Market forces have ensured that the prices of many goods and services are now below the level which companies would be entitled to charge under the Price Code; but as economic recovery progresses, the Code will play an important part in keeping down the cost of living"?
402
If so, while I welcome this belated official recognition that it is market forces rather than the Price Code which led to the fall in the rate of inflation over the past 12 months, why does she think that market forces will cease to operate in the year ahead?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman's question slightly surprises me because I suspect that he knows the answer to his own question. Market forces operate in a period of extreme recession more strongly than the Price Code. In a period of recovery, of the kind that most economists are forecasting, the Price Code tends to operate below the market. If the hon. Gentleman looks back through the reports of the Price Commission made since the Conservative Administration introduced the Price Code in 1972, he will see that the effect of the Price Code was to knock off higher profits in the period of recovery in 1973–74, but that market pressures took over as the world recession took a hold. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knew the answer all along.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call another two hon. Members from each side of the House but I must remind the House that the Secretary of State has said that the White Paper is to be debated in the House next week.
Mr. Ron Thomas: If a firm has plans for investment in any case and has the profits to invest—as many firms have—how can my right hon. Friend be sure that they will not be allowed increased prices and that capital will not go abroad? The amount of capital investment abroad continues to increase. Does she not agree than a 1 per cent. increase in the RPI is a substantial global sum? How much of that will go in new capital investment which would not otherwise have taken place?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend has asked a question which, with the best will in the world, is very difficult to answer, because investment relief can be obtained by a firm which invests in domestic plant, equipment, factories, warehouses or commercial vehicles. Now we are extending it to shops built by

403
companies for themselves and not leased from property companies. It would be a work of Solomon to distinguish between what might have happened anyway and what will happen as the result of investment relief. But I assure my hon. Friend that we have examples which indicate clearly that in some cases investment would not have taken place without the relief. They include investment in regions of high unemployment such as Scotland. Therefore, such relief must be worth having if we can ensure, as I strongly believe we can, that it will not leak into areas in which this country cannot afford to encourage investment. I invite my hon. Friend to see how the Price Commission monitors investment, because I believe that if he sees it, as I have, he will be assured, as I am, that it is a very effective new instrument.
Mr. Dodsworth: Will the Minister review again the level of investment relief, beating in mind that the relief now available has been taken up to the extent of only about 40 per cent? We have £800 million out of an available £2,000 million. Does she consider that the level of 35 per cent. is inadequate? Would it not be better if the level of investment relief were exactly the same as for income tax—100 per cent.? We need investment to stimulate recovery.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should perhaps initiate a debate between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The problem is that 100 per cent. for Price Code purposes is a totally different animal from 100 per cent. for tax purposes. What we can pass across in terms of investment relief depends a great deal on what the market will bear. My own estimate, having examined the position of many companies, was that 35 per cent. was about what the market would bear. However, this is a consultative document and we are prepared to listen to fresh propositions on it. The Government want to work within the overall figure which has approximately the impact on the RPI of which I spoke. Our view is that a much larger impact on it would be too much to ask people to accept when pay and income restraint is as tight as it is now.
Mr. Atkinson: In relation to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), will she confirm once again that the policy is that there shall be investment now and that the public shall pay later? If that is so and it is measured against the criterion which my right hon. Friend set out in her statement, that the purpose of the investment is to create jobs, is she aware of leading manufacturers' comments that the investment generated by the new policy will be directed into capital-intensive areas and therefore will not result in job creation? Therefore, are we not asking the public to pay increased prices which at the end of the day will create no new jobs?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend is not wrong in saying that some of the investment relief will go into firms which are capital-intensive, but the most capital-intensive firms in Britain are almost invariably the largest exporters. My hon. Friend will appreciate, because he is interested in economic matters, that we have as much strain arising from the balance of payments as from any other area. Therefore, I urge him to consider the following fact: in 1965 the return on capital in the private sector was about 10 per cent. Our latest estimates indicate that last year it was about 2 per cent. I believe that many of my hon. Friends would say that there was room for a lower return on capital, but they must seriously consider whether a return on capital of 2 per cent. is enough to sustain activity. The Government must honestly ask themselves that question in a mixed economy. We believe that some relief is necessary if the private sector is to sustain jobs.
My hon. Friend and I may take different views on many matters, but I ask him in the present circumstances of public expenditure to accept that the private sector must make a contribution to the improvement of employment. That contribution cannot be made solely by the public sector if we are to return to anything resembling full employment. I care as much about that as does my hon. Friend.
Mr. Sainsbury: Will the right hon. Lady accept that commerce as well as industry will be grateful for this modest

405
reduction in the handicaps the Government place on increasing efficiency and improving the service to the customer? But does she agree that the deterrent to investment represented by the Price Code increases the longer one runs a Price Code, that the present code has been operating for far longer than was intended, and that for that reason the deterrent to investment steadily increases?
Mrs. Shirley Williams: There is some truth in that. What happens with a price code is that each year it erodes what is already an eroded level from the previous year. The present Price Code is not the code I should have wished to create. I inherited it. Nevertheless, on this side of the House we cannot conceive of a situation in which, in our type of economy, we could have no price controls when there must be a major battle against inflation, though I am not sure whether the present form of control is quite the one I should have accepted.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We shall leave the matter now to the debate next week.

Ordered,
That the Development of Rural Wales Bill [Lords] be referred to the Welsh Grand Cornmittee.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Ordered,
That the Rating (Charity Shops) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

SALE OF COUNCIL HOUSES
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the sale of council houses.
There are about 6 million council houses in Britain. Given the chance, the majority of those who live in them would prefer to be owners rather than tenants of the council.
Mr. Bob Cryer: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Gow: I say "given the chance", because for many of those tenants the opportunity to buy does not exist, owing to the refusal of most Socialist-controlled councils—dwindling in number though they are—to sell council houses to their tenants.
The Bill would give every council and new town tenant who has been in his home for two years the legal right to buy it at two-thirds of the market value as fixed by the district valuer. For tenants who have been in occupation for more than 10 years, where the historic cost of building is lower, there would be a onceand-for-all option operating on a sliding scale so that there would be a maximum discount of 50 per cent. for those who had been in occupation for 20 years or more. In either case, if the tenant wished to resell within five years of becoming an owner, he would be obliged first to offer to sell his flat or house back to the council at the same price as that at which he bought it.
There are three main advantages to the Bill. First, there would be a massive redistribution of wealth in our community. Secondly, it would extend new dimensions of individual freedom to a large number of people—freedom from the petty rules and restrictions imposed by bureaucracy and freedom in ability to move around the country. Thirdly, this approach would be a direct attack on the cycle of poverty in that for the first time we should be giving many poor people that crucial facility that they lack—namely, access to wealth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House will have noticed the cries of derision from Labour Members below the Gangway.
Those are three purposes that would be achieved by the Bill and the words I have used are not mine, although I agree with them. They come verbatim from the penultimate paragraph of a pamphlet entitled "Do we need Council Houses?", published by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and written by that well-known Socialist, Mr. Frank Field.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: He is not infallible.
Mr. Gow: In the pamphlet that eminent Socialist wrote:
"There is a growing sourness on the housing estates themselves as tenants become more and more aware of the extent of the serfdom imposed upon them by their council tenancies"
Now even the Labour Front Bench is beginning to laugh at those remarks by Mr. Frank Field, but they should pay more attention to them.
The Minister for Planning and Local Government, addressing the House on 18th June—and I commend his remarks to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—said:
"Let me start by saying what this debate is not about. Whatever the Opposition may say, it is not about the principle of owner-occupation. Most people dream of having a home of their own, and why should they not?"—[Official Report, 18th June 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1244.]
Those are the Minister's words, not mine.
The answer to the Minister's own question is that at present people's dream of owing a house of their own cannot be fulfilled as the law now stands for those unfortunate enough to be living under a Labour-controlled council Hence the need for the Bill.
The sale of council houses would lead to a significant reduction in under-occupation as the new owners would be freed from existing restrictions on taking in tenants. In their retirement council house owners would be able to sell their home and move to something smaller, freeing comparatively cheap accommodation that a young family could buy.
I want to examine some of the financial consequences of these proposals. A new council house today costs about £12,000 to provide, including the land. The local council has first to borrow this money, adding to the total of public borrowing. Interest on £12,000 works out at £1,620 a year. If a further £50 a year—a modest sum—is added for maintenance and management, the total cost is £1,670 a year.
The income that the council would receive by way of rent for this house would be about £7 a week, or £360 a year. Thus, the annual cost to public funds works out at around £1,300.
If that same house were sold subsequently by the council at a 20 per cent. reduction, the tenant would have to pay £9,600. Tax relief on mortgage interest
408
would work out at £450 a year, or just about a third of the cost to public funds of subsidising a family in a new council house. The cost of housing subsidies is now running at £1,400 million a year. An acceleration of the council house sales programme would reduce that sum substantially.
The sale of council houses is beneficial to local authorities and ratepayers alike. Where the council makes the loan, mortgage repayments will be higher than the previous rent paid and the council is relieved of the cost of maintenance and repairs. Where a building society provides the mortgage, the council receives an immediate lump sum, which could be used to provide an extra home for the elderly or the handicapped.
The Building Societies Association in its memorandum of evidence to the Government's Housing Finance Review recognised the need for building societies to provide loans for the purchase of council houses. The ownership of a home makes a family independent of the State and helps to guarantee individual freedom. Indeed, 53 per cent. of the houses in this country are now owned by the families who live in them, but that proportion is significantly less than the figure in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If we are to make a reality of a nation-wide property-owning democracy—a view which I am sure is shared by Labour Members—we need to have a new radical proposal aimed at increasing home ownership.
The Labour Party in its last two election manifestos called for
"a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families."
This Bill seeks to provide exactly that fundamental and irreversible transfer of power and wealth from the State to the people. It will be fascinating to see whether Labour Members will now repudiate the commitment in their own party's manifesto and vote against the introduction of the Bill.
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I wish to oppose the Bill. I accuse many Conservative Members of hostility towards council housing on which 6 million families are dependent—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Absolute rubbish.
Mr. Allaun: Labour in contrast believes—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Chair is finding it almost impossible to hear the argument when there are so many interruptions from sedentary positions. May I appeal for order?
Mr. Allaun: I repeat that I accuse many Conservative Members of hostility towards council housing and the 6 million families who are dependent upon it. Labour, in contrast, believes both in owner-occupation and in council housing and believes that both systems are infinitely preferable to private landlordism, which has been declining since the turn of the century. We weep no tears for that. I repeat that most Conservative Members, on doctrinaire grounds, are antagonistic to council housing, whereas we want to see more public and private housing.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: More serfdom.
Mr. Allaun: This sympathetic and less restrictive attitude is shared by many impartial bodies, such as Shelter and the Housing Centre Trust. The majority of those who work for their living by hand or brain cannot buy their own houses because they cannot afford to do so, even through a building society. If it were not for council housing, many of them would be homeless.
What are the objections to selling council houses? First, it would not add a single new home to the stock of housing in this country. Secondly, in many areas most families—three out of five to be exact—who need a council house do not secure one that has just been built. Instead they get re-lets, that is to say, council houses that have been vacated because the previous tenant has died, removed to another area, or bought a private home. If we reduce the total pool of council houses, we reduce the number of available re-lets and thereby the chances of thousands of families on the waiting list of obtaining a council house.
Thirdly, I ask which council houses would be bought by the tenant. Clearly, they would be the best, the most attractive. Few, if any, multi-storey flats would
410
be purchased. While some tenants like those flats, most do not, particularly those with young children. Such families are desperately anxious to transfer to a council house with a bit of garden so that their children are not kept indoors all the time. Tenants have the chance to transfer to such homes. However, if these more attractive houses are bought up by the tenants, there is a reduced chance of transfer.
Fourthly, the money received by councils from selling houses would be far less than the price of building new council houses at today's prices.
Council housing is based on the principle of providing homes for those in the greatest need. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and other Conservative Members would provide homes for those with the biggest purse. In contrast, some Labour Members have tried to help would-be occupiers through building society or local authority mortgages. We have strongly opposed cuts in the amounts local authorities can lend to house purchasers, particularly those unable to secure building society mortgages. If tenants wish to buy themselves houses, good luck to them, but there are plenty of private houses for sale without diminishing the stock of council houses.
I do not believe that this matter should be left entirely to the local authorities, if councils are determined to sell their houses for ideological reasons. Since Conservatives control many councils following last month's elections, this is increasingly the case. Just as a former Conservative Government compelled Labour councils to raise their rents when the councils did not want or need to do so, so should the Government today tell councils that they must not sell their stock of council houses.
I would permit council houses to be sold in two cases only: first, when there is no housing shortage in an area—and there are precious few such areas—secondly, on condition that the selling price should not be at a discount of the degree proposed by the hon. Member on today's market prices, but instead at today's replacement—not market—value. There would hardly be any council houses sold on that basis. I know that for council house tenants purchasing their homes is often a "good buy", a good deal, but it is a rotten deal for the community, a bad

411
deal for councils and other families on the waiting list.
Are Conservative Members equally anxious to see the tenants of private landlords becoming owner-occupiers of those houses?
Mr. Tony Durant: Yes.
Mr. Cryer: At a discount?
Mr. Allaun: I seem to have touched a delicate spot. The exceptionally high rents to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne has referred are not charged, because they are pooled with low-rented council houses. This Bill would make that less easy.
As for the subsidy, the total for council house tenants last year in Great Britain was £1,014 million. The total subsidy for owner-occupiers is almost exactly the same. For England and Wales—the figures for Scotland are not yet available—the subsidy in the form of income tax relief on mortgage interest totalled £865 million. I conclude by asking hon. Members to throw this Bill into oblivion.
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 212, Noes 220.

Division No. 205.]

AYES

[4.20 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

MacGregor, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Arnold, Tom

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mates, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Goodhart, Philip

Mather, Carol

Awdry, Daniel

Goodhew, Victor

Maude, Angus

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Goodlad, Alastair

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Baker, Kenneth

Gorst, John

Mawby, Ray

Banks, Robert

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Bell, Ronald

Gray, Hamish

Mayhew, Patrick

Berry, Hon Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Biggs-Davison, John

Grist, Ian

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Blaker, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Body, Richard

Hall, Sir John

Moate, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Molyneaux, James

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Montgomery, Fergus

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hampson, Dr Keith

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Hannam, John

Morgan, Geraint

Braine, Sir Bernard

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hicks, Robert

Mudd, David

Buck, Antony

Higgins, Terence L.

Neave, Airey

Budgen, Nick

Holland, Philip

Nelson, Anthony

Bulmer, Esmond

Hordern, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Burden, F. A.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Newton, Tony

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Nott, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hunt, John

Onslow, Cranley

Channon, Paul

Hurd, Douglas

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, John (Harrow West)

Clegg, Walter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

James, David

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Cope, John

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

Paisley, Rev Ian

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Parkinson, Cecil

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Crawford, Douglas

Jopling Michael

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Crouch, David

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pink, R. Bonner

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Prior, Rt Hon James

Drayson, Burnaby

Kershaw, Anthony

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kimball, Marcus

Raison, Timothy

Durant, Tony

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Reid, George

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Elliott, Sir William

Knight, Mrs Jill

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Knox, David

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Eyre, Reginald

Lamont, Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fairgrieve, Russell

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Nigel

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Forman, Nigel

Le Marchant, Spencer

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fox, Marcus

Lewis Kenneth (Rutland)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Loveridge, John

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fry, Peter

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Tim

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCrindle, Robert

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Macfarlane, Neil

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Watt, Hamish

Shepherd, Colin

Stokes, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Shersby, Michael

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wells, John

Silvester, Fred

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Welsh, Andrew

Sims, Roger

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Sinclair, Sir George

Tebbit, Norman

Wiggin, Jerry

Skeet, T. H. H.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Thompson, George

Winterton, Nicholas

Speed, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D.

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Spence, John

Trotter, Neville

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Younger, Hon George

Sproat, Iain

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Stainton, Keith

Wakeham, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Mr, Ian Gow and

Stanley, John

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Michael Marshall.

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Walters, Dennis

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Warren, Kenneth

NOES

Abse, Leo

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Marks, Kenneth

Allaun, Frank

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

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Anderson, Donald

Freud, Clement

Maynard, Miss Joan

Archer, Peter

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Ashton, Joe

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mendelson, John

Atkinson, Norman

George, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Bates, Alf

Ginsburg, David

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Beith, A. J.

Golding, John

Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Graham, Ted

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Bidwell, Sydney

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Moyle, Roland

Bishop, E. S.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Grocott, Bruce

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Boardman, H.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Newens, Stanley

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Hardy, Peter

Noble, Mike

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Harper, Joseph

Oakes, Gordon

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

O'Halloran, Michael

Bradley, Tom

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Orbach, Maurice

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hatton, Frank

Ovenden, John

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Padley, Walter

Buchan, Norman

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Campbell, Ian

Hooley, Frank

Parker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Hooson, Emlyn

Parry, Robert

Cant, R. B.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Pavitt, Laurie

Carmichael, Neil

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Carter, Ray

Huckfield, Les

Penhaligon, David

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Perry, Ernest

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Clemitson, Ivor

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Coleman, Donald

Hunter, Adam

Price, William (Rugby)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Radice, Giles

Cohen, Stanley

Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Concannon, J. D.

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Conlan, Bernard

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, Geoffrey

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

John, Brynmor

Roderick, Caerwyn

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Cronin, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rose, Paul B.

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Judd, Frank

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Cryer, Bob

Kaufman, Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Kelley, Richard

Sandelson, Neville

Davidson, Arthur

Kerr, Russell

Sedgemore, Brian

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Selby, Harry

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Kinnock, Neil

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lambie, David

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Deakins, Eric

Lamborn, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Dempsey, James

Lamond, James

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Dormand, J. D.

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Dunn, James A.

Lee, John

Skinner, Dennis

Dunnett, Jack

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Small, William

Eadie, Alex

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Edge, Geoff

Litterick, Tom

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lomas, Kenneth

Snape, Peter

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Loyden, Eddie

Spearing, Nigel

Ennals, David

Luard, Evan

Steward, A. W.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

McCartney, Hugh

Stoddart, David

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Stott, Roger

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Flannery, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Madden, Max

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Magee, Bryan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mahon, Simon

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Forrester, John

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Tierney, Sydney

414

415

Tinn, James

Weitzman, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tomlinson, John

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Woodall, Alec

Tuck, Raphael

White, James (Pollok)

Woof, Robert

Urwin, T. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Young, David (Bolton E)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ward, Michael

Williams, Sir Thomas

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Watkins, David

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Watkinson, John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EDUCATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  EDUCATION BILL
    New Clause 8

      PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF SERVICE OF TEACHERS
      'The probationary period of service of a teacher shall be recognised as completed whether undertaken in a maintained or non-maintained school provided that the school is recognised by the Department of Education and Science'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.38 p.m.
      Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In moving this new clause may I preface my remarks by saying a word about the apparent misunderstanding in the Press of the purpose of the Opposition in relation to this Bill? There seems to be some misunderstanding that our attitude to this Bill is in some way connected with the breakdown of communication in what are called "the usual channels", since that little local difficulty over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I emphasise now that this has nothing to do with the matter, because whether communications are resumed or interrupted, sub rosa, sub subgreto or in secreto, we are opposed in principle to the Bill and we shall endeavour as far as we can in this Report stage to take out some of its worst features and improve it as much as we can.
      We are opposed to the principle of compulsion that is enshrined in this entire Bill. It is very odd that the Liberal Party should espouse it, because we always thought that liberty had something to do with the Liberal Party. Clearly it does not. We would have been more surprised had we not seen the recent paradox of a party which is dedicated, as it says, to raising the tone of public discussion carrying on its contest for the leadership in a very curious way. It seems an odd way of achieving that aim.
      We shall endeavour to improve the Bill in a constructive way. We have already had debates on the two major themes of
      418
      Conservative education policy—standards and the influence of parents. This new clause has to do with the choice of school. Of course, the choice of school can never be absolute, but, because it is impossible to have an absolute, it is not a good reason for doing away with the degree of choice available, and it is not a good reason for ceasing to try at every available opportunity to extend the choice that is there.
      If there is to be a choice of school for parents, one of the essential requirements to establish is that there should be freedom of movement between the maintained and the independent sectors. There should not be artificial barriers at any level—at the teacher level, at the pupil level, or at the administrative level—if they can be done away with.
      That is why we are proposing in this succinct but important clause that the probationary period of service of a teacher shall be recognised as completed whether it is undertaken in a maintained or a non-maintained school, provided that school is recognised by the Department of Education and Science.
      At the basis of this amendment there is an important principle, which is enshrined in the 1944 settlement. It is a fundamental principle, contained in Section 8 of the 1944 Act, which says:
      "It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

      (a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and

      (b) for providing secondary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils, other than such full-time education as may be provided for senior pupils in pursuance of a scheme made under the provisions of this Act relating to further education".

      In that section, we see that the duty placed upon local education authorities is not to provide schools themselves. That is not the basis of the Act. It is to secure that there are sufficient schools available. From the point of view of this basic section of the Act, it matters not whether those schools are provided in the maintained sector or outside it, so long as the schools are available.
      4.45 p.m.
      This principle is followed through in various sections of the Act, which give the local authorities power to pay fees

      419
      at non-maintained schools, thus again showing that the intentions of the framers of the Act were to see that there should be places available for children whatever their provenance. Section 81 of the Act gives that power for local education authorities and Section 100 for the Secretary of State. Later, in the 1953 Act, the duty to pay fees in certain cases was added to the power to do so.
      Thus we see that the policy of the Act is quite the opposite of the policy now being pursued by the present Administration. It is odd that a Government who are so strongly against the doctrine of apartheid in race relations—and quite rightly so—should espouse that same doctrine in education and seek to establish an unbridgeable gulf between the maintained and the independent sectors. Why else were the direct grant schools destroyed? They were destroyed because they were bridges between those two sectors.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Rubbish.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was the reason why they were destroyed. They were destroyed so that the independent schools would be left in isolation, and no doubt in due course they will fall victim to the Government's axe. "Divide and rule" has been the motto of tyrants throughout the ages, and this is the policy that has been followed in education.
      The policy of the Opposition is quite different. We want to establish as many links as possible between the independent schools and the maintained sector, and we want to preserve as many hybrid schools as possible, because we do not wish to see the different sections of the education service isolated one from another.
      It was for that reason that Lord Boyle, whose name is so often upon the lips of Government supporters—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wish to interrupt me? I was not worrying particularly—
      Mr. Clement Freud: Get on with it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The House must observe the common courtesies. It is
      420
      very difficult if interruptions occur when an hon. Member is on his feet.
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely commenting on the hon. Gentleman's accent. His pronunciation of the word "often" as "orften" is very much middle or upper class, and some of us find it very difficult to follow him.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
      Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was no point of order.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Then, on a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman because he speaks at the rate of about 1 m.p.h. Will you encourage him to go a little faster?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appeal to the House. Let us have a little courtesy from both sides.
      Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not difficult for you to condone gratuitous and shoddy insults from the Minister and then, when we ask him to speed up his interminable and boring speech, say that it is considered discourteous?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: An hon. Member is fully entitled, as long as he is within the rules of order, to develop his argument as he so wishes.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps somebody could inform the Liberal education spokesman that there has been a change of Government, and that I am no longer Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.
      As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walton, I fail to see that there is any moral difference between broadening one's o's and dropping one's h's. I really think we must put up with each other's idiosyncrasies, in pronunciation and in other ways. I certainly do not in any way reproach the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for coming here improperly dressed. I wonder whether he was sacked by the Prime Minister for that reason. I note

      421
      that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is putting on his tie. Things are improving! Where, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will it all end?
      I return to my text. Inadequate though it may be, it seems to have been superior to the various diversions that have been provided.
      Mr. Heffer: It is a bit "orf"-putting!
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has had its fun. Let us be serious now.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I had thought of an answer to that remark from the hon. Member for Walton, but I resisted the temptation to make it.
      The important point here is that local education authorities had this right to take up places in the independent sector. Of course, there are limitations to this. The district auditor, for example, has a perfect right to inquire into the matter, as he has a right to inqure into any item that appears in the accounts of a local education authority. But it is lawful—this is the point that should have been made clear by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State and her Ministry—for any local education authority, such as Bromley—I must be careful about my pronunciation here—to provide places and to provide the fees for those places in the independent sector if it wishes as an altenative.
      Under Section 9 of the Education Act 1944, local education authorities have always been entitled to assist schools that are not maintained in accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Lady had been straightforward about that and made that clear, she would have been much better occupied than in making the rather unfortunate comments that she passed on the letter she received from an hon. Friend of mine. They attracted attention in no less a journal than the Daily Express, where she counselled neutrality on such matters as the preservation of the Monarchy and the constitution.
      It has been argued that the 1953 Act impliedly prohibits local education authorities from providing free places, except where there is a shortage of places at maintained schools. This is the weapon that has been used to try to blow up that particular bridge between the maintained and independent sectors. But I am advised that the powers in the 1953
      422
      Act are not in derogation of but in addition to the powers in the 1944 Act. The exercise of any power under the Education Acts could become illegal if it were totally unreasonably exercised.
      Mr. Arnold Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the right brief? There has been no mention by him so far of the clause before the House, namely, New Clause 8, which deals with the probationary period of service of teachers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his arguments in his own way.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has the right to develop his argument as he chooses, but if we are to go through the whole list of potential and actual bridges between the independent sector and the maintained sector and to arrive at the probationary period of teaching only finally, we shall have covered the whole purview of the education service.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is hardly a point of order, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Lady has made an exciting suggestion. I am tempted to follow her advice, but I think that I have quoted sufficiently from the Education Acts to establish my point. It is an important one—namely, that the basic principle of the system is to link the independent and the maintained sectors. It is in that general setting of principle that the clause is being moved.
      It is not, as the hon. Lady appears to think, some kind of revolution. It is a Conservative proposal building on a foundation that is already there. I hope that the hon. Lady will try to cast out from her mind the prejudices that, unfortunately, exist against the independent sector. She and others on the Government side seem to regard the independent sector as some kind of evil.
      I am sure that the hon. Lady has a bright and brilliant career ahead of her, but we warn her to avoid the fate that overtook the right hon. Member for

      423
      Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He suggested that it should be made a criminal offence to send a child to a private school, thus indulging his prejudices to the full. As a result of that statement, the former Prime Minister decided that the right hon. Gentleman was unsuitable to become Secretary of State for Education and Science. We therefore see on the Government Front Bench the residuary beneficiary of that decision.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): If I might put the record straight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was the next but one.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: There were two residuary beneficiaries. The right hon. Gentleman was the second.
      At present, a teacher who has completed a training course at a college of education has to complete a probationary year of teaching in a school if he is to enjoy the status of qualification. It is only after the first year of full-time teaching is completed and accepted as being of sufficient standard that the teacher is considered as being fully qualified.
      The anomaly of the present situation is that such a qualifying probationary year can be served only in a maintained school. If the trainee-teacher leaves college and goes straight to an independent school—no matter how good that school might be, and no matter how good that teacher might be—that teacher is not regarded as fully qualified. This can have salary and career prospect repercussions later.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my hon. Friend say how that comes about? Is it by virtue of regulations made under the 1944 Act? If not, in what other manner does it come about?
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is done under regulations exercised under the 1944 Act, but it would be possible to reverse that policy. I would be delighted, if the Minister was willing to make a declaration to that effect, to withdraw the clause and to make progress immediately to the next new clause. I think that she is considering the matter.
      The shortcomings of this situation were highlighted when the direct grant schools were abolished by the Government. Some
      424
      of the teachers in those schools went into the maintained sector. Many of them were teachers of long standing, yet they had never completed a probationary year in a maintained school. It is true that the Secretary of State waived the requirement in the case of a number of teachers, and accepted a number of years' teaching in a direct grant school as being the equivalent for probationary purposes of one year in a maintained school.
      However, the new teachers in direct grant schools were not so fortunate. They are one group of people who have been put into difficulties by Government policies on this matter. Not only existing teachers are affected by the rule of not recognising service in non-maintained schools. Teachers coming from the colleges of education are finding it extremely hard to get a job at the moment. We are faced with the real possibility that by the autumn perhaps as many as 15,000 teachers who have been trained for their jobs will be unable to find work. Responsibility for that rests with the Government, who have continually changed their policies on the number of teachers who are to be employed within the maintained system, and who have been cutting down their estimates continually since the Conservative White Paper of 1972.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: How many teachers would be unemployed if the Government were to invoke the public expenditure cuts demanded by the Opposition?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Opposition have never asked for cuts in the education service—
      Mr. Heffer: They have never said where they want cuts.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas:—so it would not affect the issue one way or the other. Would it make Labour Members happier if the Opposition were demanding cuts in the education service?
      Miss Margaret Jackson: May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is giving us an assurance, after all our difficulties of the past few months in seeking to discover where the public expenditure cuts proposed by the Conservatives would fall, that they will not fall on education and that no further cuts in education would be proposed?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am here not to prophesy, but to deal with the facts. I have been asked whether our policy would result in more teachers being unemployed. I say that we have never demanded cuts in education. With the activities of the present Secretary of State that is hardly a virtue because it has been unnecessary to make such a demand. But this is an important point to note. Although there certainly have been demands for cuts in public expenditure, and there have been specific proposals in other spheres, there have been no demands for cuts in education.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: Our debate is being closely watched by the whole education profession. One of the important things that teachers want to know is what public expenditure cuts the Opposition would make in the education service. At a time like this they are unwilling to be fobbed off with a statement to the effect that the Conservatives do not need to state their policy on that. It is vitally important that it is stated.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must intervene here. We must leave this aspect of the subject and return to the new clause.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall leave the facts as they are. The Opposition have never demanded cuts in the education service, and the Government have made record cuts in that service.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has run away from the question.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have run away from nothing. I have made the point clear. I am following a ruling of the Chair, and it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would do the same and not make interruptions from a sedentary position.
      The clause would somewhat ease the position of some of the student teachers who will be unemployed because of Government policy. It would enable them to serve their probationary year in any recognised school, not just in a maintained school. It is important to note the limited effect of the clause. It does not say that the probationary period can
      426
      be served in any school. It must be served in a maintained school or a non-maintained school, in which case the school must be recognised by the Department.
      There is a process of registration by which every independent school must register, but the act of registration carries no approval from the Department. But if the process is put into operation the school is recognised as efficient. That is the equivalent of the Department recognising that in those schools the standard of education is accepted by the Secretary of State as satisfactory. A safeguard for standards is therefore built into the clause. There can therefore be no question of a teacher being able to serve his probation in a school which is in some way inferior, because it is only in those schools which have been recognised by the Department as reaching certain basic standards that the clause would apply.
      I hope that the Minister will be her normal reasonable self and will either give some undertaking that this proposal will be considered further—because the matter was considered seriously when I was a Minister in her Department—or, if she cannot do that, will give some indication of the Department's thinking on this point and say why there should not be this additional bridge between the two sectors.
      I press upon the hon. Lady the need to alleviate unemployment among student teachers. We know that there are difficulties and that education must take its share of any cuts, but so far it has taken an unfair share. About 25 per cent. of the proposed cuts in expenditure fall on education services.
      If that is the Government's policy, the least they should do is to try to improve matters where, within the parameters of that policy, they have some room to manoeuvre. If they accepted the new clause, they would be able, in a small way, to improve employment prospects in the education service and, more important, raise standards and create an atmosphere of co-operation between the independent and maintained sectors.
      Whatever our ideological differences, teachers have in common the fact that they are at the service of children and parents and they should be facilitated in their work instead of being hindered.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made plain in part of his speech, the existing position in statute and regulation is that the probationary period of service of a qualified teacher can be served only in a maintained school. However, there seems to have been a misunderstanding which has led the Opposition to put down a new clause which is, in essence, unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has power to reduce or waive the probationary period of individual teachers who have had service in non-maintained schools. This power is frequently used.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that when he was at my Department this matter was being examined. He will be pleased to know that there has been some action. In the circular issued in May last year, local authorities were told that they could assume that if they applied for probation to be waived for a teacher from an independent school whom they wished to employ in a maintained school, it would automatically be granted.
      I am a little unhappy that the new clause should suggest that service in independent schools should automatically be counted against the probationary period. That assumes that such service would always be suitable and comparable and, perhaps more important, the new clause would remove from local authorities—who are the employers—their option to exercise a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the new clause since what it seeks to do is already possible and actually takes place.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that he believed that the new clause would ease employment prospects. I cannot see how that would be done. It is open to local authorities to employ teachers from training colleges, independent schools or wherever they choose. The difficulty is in teachers being able to get jobs and not whether their probationary period has been served in a maintained school.
      I also wish to put on the record, although the hon. Member for Chelmsford did not raise this point, that there is no time limit on the probationary period. There is no question of a teacher having to serve the probationary year within a fixed time after leaving training college.
      428
      Most of the difficulties raised with the Department on this issue are illusory. I do not see how the new clause would improve employment prospects or have any particular effect on standards unless the hon. Member assumes that a teacher employed in an independent school is of a higher standard than a teacher in a maintained school, and I would not support that proposition.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Nor would I ever support such an absurd generalisation. Does the hon. Lady not realise that if an established teacher has to undergo a probation period it may interrupt and damage his career prospects?
      5.15 p.m.
      Miss Jackson: Apparently I have not made myself clear. The whole point of what I was saying about the freedom enjoyed by local authorities is that they can apply for that period to be waived. There is no question of a teacher from an independent school having to serve a probationary year in the maintained system. If a local authority feels that a teacher has already served a period that covers the intentions of the probation period, it can apply to have the period waived and the application will be automatically granted.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Lady seems to be contradicting herself. One moment she says that the Secretary of State already has the power in respect of some teachers and the next she says that the new clause is unnecessary. If the clause sets out powers which the Secretary of State already has, why should they not be institutionalised and made the right of all teachers?
      Miss Jackson: I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The powers sought in the new clause have already been institutionalised within the grasp of the Secretary of State. That makes any further writing into law unnecessary. The Secretary of State frequently uses his power to waive the probation period and it can be assumed by local authorities that he will automatically grant their requests for the period to be waived. I hope the Opposition will withdraw the new clause, which is unnecessary.
      Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have listened to a 33-minute speech from an ex-Minister

      429
      and current Shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on a new clause seeking powers which, as the Minister has just explained, already exist, but for the fact that what is currently on the statute book is a "may be" and that what the Opposition seek is a "shall be". As we have had 33 minutes on whether a "may" should become a "shall" and there are 32 new clauses still to be debated, should we not assume that the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford was an effort to do nothing more than filibuster?
      Mr. Speaker: I had the misfortune to hear only a few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There is a lot of business before the House, and hon. Members will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
      Sir George Sinclair: I shall be quite brief. This extremely stupid regulation should have been done away with by whatever Governments were in power after it was introduced. The new clause attempts to get rid of a rather stupid hobble on the freedom of teachers.
      If the Secretary of State regards a school as efficient and a teacher from training college completes a year's satisfactory teaching at that school, it should be his right to achieve full qualification without having to ask the Secretary of State and without it being at the whim of a local authority. Surely this is part of the training, and if it is done in an efficient school that should be sufficient to grant the teacher his or her full qualification. On that full qualification depends both salary and promotion prospects.
      It is all very well for the hon. Lady, who is normally extremely reasonable, saying that there is no time qualification on gaining this full qualification after training and teaching in an independent school. That is not the point. If a person is denied this qualification for some years because there is no undertaking that one year in an independent school, even if recognised as efficient, will complete the qualification, and if a teacher has to go for several years before transferring to the maintained sector, that will put back the qualification date and, no doubt, the chances of promotion, when one person has may years of qualified
      430
      service and another person has only a few years.
      It is ridiculous to play about with the work of teachers who have legitimately qualified themselves at teacher training colleges, or at universities, and probably in both, by mucking about with the year of probationary teaching. It should be served equally in either the maintained sector or the independent sector, provided each sector's schools are regarded by the Secretary of State as efficient. That should be enough. Why this humbug about teachers? I think all past Governments are to blame for not having wiped out this ridiculous and antiquated hobble on their freedom.
      Mr. Neville Sandelson: Hobble?
      Sir C. Sinclair: A hobble is something that prevents a beast from going at its natural gait.
      Dr. Rhodes Boyson: That is today's word.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps my hon. Friend should have said obol.
      Sir G. Sinclair: As my hon. Friend knows, that is a coin with which one is not familiar until one dies.
      It is a silly regulation, and I think that the hon. Lady would gain widespread thanks throughout the teaching profession if she did away with this stupidity. We are trying to get the maximum range of educational exchange. I am not talking about political divisions in education but about qualified teachers who discuss education problems among themselves.
      There is quite a large exchange between the maintained and independent sectors. Indeed, it was even larger before there was this dogmatic interference with the direct grant schools. It is found by many of those who have had experience in both sectors—and many wish to have experience in both sectors because they are part of the teaching of the youth of this country—and those who laudably desire such experience that it is made more difficult to acquire by stupid handicaps such as the regulation provides and such as the new clause is designed to remove.
      I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and the professions which advise the Department, will decide, on

      431
      reflection, that it is time to have done with this restriction.
      Mr. Tom Arnold: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) by saying that it is important to recognise that we are dealing with a practical problem. This is not a matter of ideology, nor is it educational theory, it is a question of what the test should be in determining probationary service as it affects qualification. In turn, it is an issue affecting the rights of teachers. Given the sharp division between the maintained sector and the independent sector, surely it is correct that those rights should be clearly defined and protected.
      I agree with the Under-Secretary of State that the Secretary of State has waived the present requirement for many teachers and has accepted many years of teaching in a direct grant school, for example, as being the equivalent, for probationary purposes, of one year in a maintained school. However. waiving a requirement is not the same as establishing a right.
      Sir G. Sinclair: That is the point.
      Mr. Arnold: That is the central issue with which we are seeking to deal.
      Having dealt with the issue of definition, I turn briefly to protection. It is our contention that in practical terms the acceptance of the new clause would ease the position of teachers in the independent sector who wish to enter the maintained sector. It would ease the plight of some student teachers who face difficulties under the present regulations. It would make for a greater degree of flexibility for teachers generally between all schools, whether maintained or not.
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stokes.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stour-bridge): I am grateful for the great interest which hon. Members show in the few words that I have to say on the new clause.
      Mr. Flannery: Especially after yesterday.
      Mr. Stokes: I am sure that most Members on both sides of the House, in discussing this non-political matter, wish to
      432
      break down the isolation and in-breeding of some teachers in the State system. I believe that a period in a direct grant school, an independent grammar school, a public school or a preparatory school might well do a teacher from a State school a very great deal of good.
      Mr. Heffer: It did not do me any good.
      Mr. Mike Noble Mr. Mike Noble(Rossendale) rose—
      Mr. Stokes: Surely all reasonable people—
      Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir G. Sinclair Sir G. Sinclair rose—
      Mr. Stokes: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G Sinclair).
      Sir G. Sinclair: When my hon. Friend uses the word "reasonable", does he define that as being in a state of educational grace able to receive new experiences?
      Mr. Stokes: Much as I admire my hon. Friend, I should hesitate to reply to that somewhat difficult and philosophical question. I must assume that everyone in this honourable House is, or hopes to be, in a state of grace.
      Surely all reasonable people want closer links between the State system and other schools. I sometimes feel nowadays that some State teachers, especially some of the younger ones, are almost in danger of becoming like Trappist monks. I believe they should mix more in the world in every way they can. That, incidentally, might improve their employment position.
      I turn briefly to my own experience. I started my career just before the war as a schoolmaster. In those unregenerate days I had no probationary period. The only advice I received from my headmaster was never to turn my back on the enemy when writing on the blackboard.
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Stokes: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I know that Mr. Speaker wants us to move quickly.
      I taught the bottom form everything at a preparatory school. The members of

      433
      the form were aged seven or eight. The headmaster believed—probably correctly—that in those days the British Empire was largely run by those who had two gifts—namely, those who had mastered their Latin irregular verbs and who at cricket could bowl a good length. Perhaps we have lost our Empire because we do not have such people nowadays, but seriously—
      Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it might not now be right to have a two-minute silence.
      Mr. Speaker: That will not be required.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) will appreciate that I fully endorse his idea of mixing. He will no doubt be surprised to know that I went to a public school—Haileybury College. I used to deliver meat on a Saturday morning.
      Mr. Stokes: I know and admire the hon. Gentleman very much. I have often told him that if I were a dictator I would not shoot him, but at least I would shut him up. However, perhaps I may be serious. I am trying to be brief.
      Teachers surely must never forget that they are citizens also, as well as teachers, and that a period for them in the outside world will always do them a power of good. If some cannot even now get the probationary period they want, they must try something else. They can go, for instance, into industrial education. They can try to get into the training boards or the Manpower Services Commission, which employs hundreds and hundreds of people. They can try to get into the Civil Service or into industry, on the training or personnel side. If they wish, they can try to get into the educational branches of the Armed Services. Having had this experience of perhaps two or three years, when the economic climate improves—as we hope it will with a new Government—they can return to teaching enriched by their outside experience.
      Finally, I believe that teachers need to be balanced, experienced and wise people with a knowledge of the world and, above all, with high standards and high ideals. We know that their influence on children is second only to that
      434
      of the home. Let us ensure that their apprenticeship is as wide and as far reaching as possible.
      Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
      Mr. Nigel Spearing Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bell.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: I would gladly have followed a contribution by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but no doubt he will have the opportunity of following mine.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr, St. John-Stevas) in his moving of the Second Reading of the new Clause. I feel that the Under-Secretary has underestimated its importance, as has the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I say that for a number of reasons, which I can put succinctly.
      The first reason is that these regulations in this form should never have been made at all. I refrain from asking who made them because I might not like the answer. I do not know who made them. A good many of the regulations under the Education Act 1944, to which I have objected at various times, have come, I am afraid from both sides in politics. I have always taken the view that the regulation-making power under the 1944 Act has been over-used and sometimes abused— for example, forbidding the starting off of children at the age of five with a half-day in school, which, incredibly enough, is made under the default powers under the Act. That is a great abuse.
      This is a regulation which should never have been made, because the training of teachers should be judged on its adequacy as training. They go to a training college. We have increased the period to three years of formal training. I do not know whether that is a good thing. Anyway, we have done that. Then we say that they must have a year's practical experience in school. I see no reason whatsoever why it should be said that that school must be a maintained school. Some would argue—possibly the hon. Member for Isle of Ely—that in a maintained school they would have experience of larger classes and possibly of greater disciplinary problems than they would have in a non-maintained school. I do not know about the disciplinary problems. I rather doubt whether there is

      435
      an awful lot of difference normally, nowadays—we are speaking of 1976—in the size of classes in those two kinds of schools, because there has been a notable reduction in the size of classes in the maintained schools, partly as a result of the falling birth rate.
      The objection that I see to maintaining this regulation, which, after all, says in direct terms that the teacher must spend that year's practical training in a maintained school, is that what the Secretary of State has is a dispensing power, which he may or may not use. Apparently, at present, he uses it upon the initiative of a local authority, not of a teacher. I see the Under-Secretary nodding in agreement. Therefore, it is not the teacher who can apply to the Secretary of State for dispensation but the local authority.
      We must bear in mind that the present Government have certain policies in relation to education which could very easily result—which they want to result—in a diminuation of the non-maintained sector. first by eliminating the direct grant schools and, secondly—the Government have made no secret of it—after that, by diminishing the field of independent education.
      If those things are done, both the first and the second, one could easily have a considerable number of teachers who waited to move into the maintained sector, as a matter not of choice but of necessity, because of the policies of the Government of the day. It could be a great hardship to them if they were not treated as qualified teachers, in spite of the fact that they might be highly qualified and highly experienced, because they had not done one year in a maintained school.
      There is at present a problem of employment for those coming out of the teacher training colleges, the colleges of education. In this atmosphere there must be a temptation upon the Secretary of State to refuse clearance to some of those who want to transfer from the independent sector to the State-maintained sector and to say "No. There are people coming out of the colleges who have done their year in a maintained school and cannot find work, and I shall not grant qualified status to people who have been in the independent sector." That would
      436
      be a very wrong thing, but there is no safeguard at all against it happening while this is a matter not even of regulation but of dispensation from a regulation in each individual case by the Secretary of State.
      If the House is of the opinion—as I am of the opinion and I think a good many other people are—that the teacher training rules should be directed solely to ensuring that we turn out properly trained and experienced teachers, I venture to suggest that the new clause should be accepted, because all that it does is to say that a year in a school which is recognised as efficient shall count as the practical year for the teacher who otherwise is qualified. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, who is present and who will, perhaps, reply to the debate, will see the justice of this and, in the present context, the importance of it, and will give a rather more forthcoming answer than we have had from the Under-Secretary.
      Mr. Spearing: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has hit upon a point of difference across the Floor of the House on the question of the practice. The Under-Secretary has said that at present, by circular, this arrangement can continue. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point when he says that if we put this safeguard into the Bill, it becomes mandatory, because the words state that such teachers "shall be recognised". However, that would be going too far because it would give an imprimatur of respectability, from some people's point of view, to a process which would not be thought to be universally acceptable. During the rest of my speech I shall try to show some of the reasons why I do not think it would be acceptable by statute, although it may be acceptable by regulation or circular, to deal particularly with exceptional circumstances that we may be facing.
      Curiously enough, although the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) contained a good deal with which I would certainly disagree, the content was very important. He dealt firstly with experience in the outside world. In the context in which he spoke, I believe that he was thinking of the outside world being the independent sector. It is interesting to see the

      437
      hon. Gentleman shaking his head, so I am wrong about that, but I think we all agree that, in many parts of the education service it would be better if teachers were not recruited until they were 23 or 24, and therefore the question of experience would be met. Only mature people would be recruited for teacher training, and perhaps we could afford the extra cost of maintaining them at a reasonable salary at that age. But that is not within the terms of this clause, although it is relevant from the point of view of experience.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that the maintained sector should encourage in-breeding. I should have thought that if there were any sector that encouraged in-breeding it was the private sector. That has been the experience of people in education because, on the whole, the movement—if there is any movement—has been from the maintained into the private sector. Indeed, some people have been unkind enough to call them refugees from the maintained sector where, because of the nature of the situation, things are sometimes more difficult and taxing for the skills of teachers.
      We must look at the question of sector in terms of size. Conservative Members have spoken as though there is a balanced situation but, without looking at the figures, I suggest that the difference in size is that the maintained sector has been 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of children of school age, while the private sector has been between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., or less. Therefore, it is not a question of balance between the two, but a question of a massive maintained sector and a small non-maintained or private sector.
      The reference to a bridge and a free flow is not a reference to two halves of a town on either side of a river, with the citizens passing to and fro about their business to the mutual benefit of both. There is not a bridge of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There is not a bridge between the two sectors in the sense that there is free passage between them, because in the non-maintained sector there is a gateway, and that gateway is one of selection, or finance, or a combination of the two. Therefore, it is not
      438
      a bridge in the normally accepted sense of the word, and when we debate this matter the word in its wholesome and good sense is used in a context which I do not believe is correct.
      Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the private sector, because of the vast amount of money available to people who send their children to these schools, the classes are small and it is common for a teacher to teach only about 12 children? Does he further agree that there is no proof that a teacher who can grapple with 12 children can manage 40 or 45 children, as often happens in the maintained sector?
      Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend is on to a big distinction between the two sectors. It is one not only of size but of internal characteristics, because one characteristic of the private sector is that the sanctions of the school on the pupil and on the parents are of a different nature. I hope that anybody who criticises the public sector, as distinct from the private one, will remember that. I am glad to note the agreement of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) because he knows that only too well. There is a different set of sanctions in the private sector from those that one finds in the maintained sector. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about sanctions and size, I should not necessarily rest the distinction on that alone, because there is a wide range of sanctions inside the public sector itself.
      5.45 p.m.
      There is one matter that has not been raised so far in this debate, but it is germane to the whole question before us. What happens in the probationary year? Why is there a probationary year anyway? What must happen for a teacher to fail it and therefore not be qualified? Clearly, in that year in any good school the probationary teacher has a supervisor. It may be the head of the subject department, the headmaster, or an older member of the staff who, as part of his duties, is asked to look after young teachers during their first year's teaching. One problem facing many schools is that there are far too many younger teachers. This is particularly so in the big cities. The proportion is such that it is difficult for the older teachers with experience to handle the younger

      439
      members, but during that year these young teachers must have support, and at the end of it somebody has to say that they have benefited by that year and are therefore qualified and have passed their probationary year.
      Who is to decide that in the independent or private sector if the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford is accepted? Is it to be the headmaster, or somebody from the Department of Education and Science? As I understand it, at the moment in the maintained sector this is done by the local education committee. The committee has its professional advisers, its chief education officer and its heads of department, and between them they have a corpus of educational knowledge and pedagogical skills that are not found in the individual school in the private sector.
      During the probationary period there are visits to the school by inspectors. In a good maintained school the head will certainly be concerned with his young teachers, and at the end of the year some form of test, some sort of—dare I say it?—examination or qualification as to standards will be applied. It may be that they have not been applied in the past as much as some would wish. It may be that to some extent the process has been a formality, but the opportunity is there, and I believe that that opportunity is best taken care of in the maintained sector, where not only is variety of experience far greater but the degree of supervision and general professional standard can be known, understood and complied with.
      If the hon. Member for Chelmsford wishes to press this change, he must say how he envisages its working in the private sector not only during that year but also to provide some generally accepted form of test at the end of the year that will be acceptable not only in the private sector but also in the maintained one, and that creates one problem.
      Whilst all schools in the maintained sector are providing education, as all hon. Members would like to see, there are some schools in the private sector which, whilst maintaining and providing some form of education, are also literally selling something else, and that, I think, is something that may create some difficulty with the
      440
      so-called bridge to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford referred.
      Mr. Freud: This new clause seems to take away an essential freedom, and I am surprised that Members of the Conservative Party, a party which has so steadily held out for freedom of education, should propose such a clause.
      The freedom that the Secretary of State has always had is to waive the probationary period if he feels that such a period has been served in a school of which he approves. If the new clause were passed it would mean that he would no longer have the right to say "I do not believe that the experience gained in this school is adequate for any other school to which that teacher might go".
      I do not believe that there is a difference of opinion in the House about this. Both sides of this honourable establishment want to perpetuate the employment of efficient and qualified teachers, and the only difference that the new clause would make is that the words "shall be recognised" would take over from "may be recognised", which is implicit in the 1944 Act's 1959 amendment.
      I believe that there are many instances of private schools—and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raised one—where the classes are very small and the children come from a particular part of the country, and where one year's teaching in such an establishment is an adequate preparation for going to a different type of school. We on the Liberal Bench will oppose the new clause, because we think the Act at the moment is perfectly adequate and we feel that the Secretary of State should reserve the right to use his discretion if teachers seem to him not to be fully qualified.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
      Mr. Freud: I have sat down.
      Mr. Patrick Mayhew (Royal Tunbridge Wells): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has forgone the opportunity to explain his remarks further. I should like briefly to follow what has been said by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He and I would both agree on the importance of there being a probationary period for teachers as for many other professional people. It is necessary that those

      441
      who have undergone an academic preparation for professional life should have some exposure to practical problems in the field.
      The issue before us seems to be simple. It is whether we should persist with a regulation that cuts down the access to solving this practical problem in a gratuitous and unnecessary way. We should feel it absurd if we were to say that doctors should have a probationary period but that a student doctor who received experience only by working for a doctor operating only in private medicine rather rather than in the National Health Service should not be regarded as having passed a probationary period; or if we applied the principle to apprentices and said that someone who worked in a private enterprise firm rather than a nationalised industry should not be regarded as having completed a probationary period. I would say that was a distinction that had far more to do with dogma and doctrine than practical considerations. That is the essence of the problem with which we are concerned.
      What we have to ask is whether the regulation ought to be supported to the extent that it restricts student teachers' access to the practical problems in the field and the test of legislation should be whether the fullest access is afforded or whether a restriction is imposed. Why should we apply to student teachers a restriction that we do not apply in other fields?
      The hon. Member for Newham, South and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely made a superficially attractive point when they said that there were certain private schools where there are small classes. That would be a logical and consistent argument against the new clause were there some other criterion applied by the regulation as it stands save the broad and general criterion that the schools shall be in the maintained sector. No one would argue that there are not schools in the independent sector where there are very small classes. No one would argue that in the non-independent sector a teacher is, above all else, skilled and practised in the arts of crowd management, and what we are dealing with is teachers.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not a fact that in some of the city centres, where the
      442
      population is fading and which have small constituencies, there are maintained schools with remarkably small classes?
      Mr. Mayhew: Yes, that is right, and it is something for which we must all work. We are working for smaller classes and if expenditure by the Government were applied according to a more sensible system of priorities, we could get there very much more quickly.
      What we are talking about in this debate is whether we should apply a quite artificial restriction in the case of the independent schools and whether we are to maintain a criterion which is very general indeed under the present legislation. The present legislation says that the probationary year must be served in a maintained school. The Under-Secretary of State recognised the general absurdity of this restriction in her very brief speech—brevity was perhaps its best feature.
      What she said was that the criterion was not strictly adhered to and, under the 1975 circular, local authorities are told that they may assume that it will not be enforced by the Minister. If that is the case and if local authorities may assume that it will not be enforced, why object to the new clause? It is not as though the new clause said that a probationary year may be served in any independent school only as long as it is independent. What we are saying is that it shall be taken to be served if it is completed in a school which is not only independent but recognised by the Secretary of State, that is to say, in an independent school which is also an efficient independent school.
      The hon. Lady was forced to accept that criticism of her argument. She turned to the next line of defence and said that the reason that the Government insist on keeping it in the legislation, notwithstanding that it may be assumed that it will hardly ever apply, is that not every independent school is acceptable. If we apply that argument to the legislation as it stands, the retort is that perhaps not every maintained school is a suitable field for the service of a probationary year. All we are saying is that there should be no artificial distinction between the independent sector and the maintained sector.
      It follows that the Government want to object to the new clause in order to

      443
      shut out certain teachers and certain schools. Those certain schools are efficient schools, and to do so will inevitably add to the unemployment problems of student teachers. All of us must have had letters recently from student teachers who have been unable to get jobs and who have been unable to get schools in which to serve their probationary period. I have one here which says:
      "Of the 160 third year students leaving college this year only six have found jobs and only 24 of the 50 fourth year students."
      Why increase the difficulties that student teachers are now experiencing? It seems to me that there can be only one reasonable criterion and that is the efficiency of the school in which the probationary year is to be served. If we stipulate that, we stipulate all that is necessary. Merely to say, as the hon. Lady did, that there is no time limit for the service of the probationary year is to add insult to the injury already occasioned on some pretty intelligent people.
      Of course there is no time limit. One can serve one's probationary year 15 years after one finished academic training, but one will probably have forgotten it in half that period and there is not much consolation for student teachers to be told "When a job becomes available, you will not be shut out from doing your probationary year just because several years have elapsed since you completed your academic training". This clause contains a lot of common sense and I hope that it will be accepted.
      Mr. George Gardiner: It has not been often in debates on this Bill, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, that one has had the chance to comment upon a point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Perhaps that is just as well. He said that the new clause would limit freedom in education, not extend it. I would simply ask him to appreciate that there is a great deal more to freedom in education than simply freedom for the Secretary of State.
      I was rather more interested in what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said about the notion of bridge building and keeping bridges open between the maintained and non-maintained sectors. Of course there is
      444
      great imbalance in size between the two sectors, and teachers and pupils in the non-maintained sector often enjoy considerable advantages. But one cannot accept that the idea of bridges is invalid simply because too few people cross them. I want more to do so, but to achieve that one does not blow up the existing bridges. That was the burden of the hon. Member's argument.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Spearing: I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to attribute to me words that I did not say. I did not say that I wanted to increase the number crossing these bridges. I said that they were toll bridges or drawbridges or a combination of both. Would he agree with that?
      Mr. Gardiner: I was not seeking to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I think that his point was that to argue as we do about keeping bridges open was not valid because too few were crossing them. I want to stress the importance of maintaining bridges between the two sectors and ensuring that more people cross them.
      A number of co-operative arrangements have been made between the two sectors by which pupils in one kind of institution can have experience in the other and share certain facilities. There has long been interchange between the two sectors in sport, but there have also been some notable experiments in maintained and non-maintained schools pooling facilities, locally, for example in sixth-form study courses.
      The new clause is principally concerned with teachers. I underline the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) made far more wittily than I could do. We want more movement of teachers between the two sectors, and he stressed the need to ensure that some of those who spend the bulk of their lives in the maintained sector should have experience of the non-maintained schools. The argument is equally valid, of course, the other way round.
      Mr. Flannery: What about pupils?
      Mr. Gardiner: I have already referred to pupils.
      This would greatly broaden the experience of teachers which they could pass

      445
      on to their pupils, and both categories of teacher would benefit. We are used to the argument about the great advantage of people in industry and commerce being seconded into the Civil Service and vice versa. The same argument could be applied to this case. It would broaden job opportunities and guarantee teachers greater employment possibilities. This is particularly important with the growing queue of unemployed trained teachers.
      The Under-Secretary argued that because the Secretary of State already had such powers, which were frequently used, there was no need for the new clause. If these powers are used so frequently, why not give the guarantee and remove a blockage which causes so much irritation? She quoted Circular 70/75, but the point of that is to put the onus on the local education authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) said, waiving requirements is far different from establishing a right and it is the right that we are after here.
      The hon. Lady was worried about the implications of making this provision automatic, but she glossed over the fact that it would be applied only to those independent schools recognised by the Department. If a school is to be recognised for one purpose, why can it not be recognised for the other? The new clause would benefit all schools, whether maintained or not, the teachers and, through them, the pupils.
      Mr. Heffer: I think that we are discussing the wrong subject. We should be discussing how to find employment for student teachers who will go nowhere after college, who will not even have the opportunity of a probationary period of one year.
      Incidentally, I am not in favour of probationary periods. I served five years as an apprentice joiner. When I finished my apprenticeship, all the employers I approached argued that I should take less pay because I was under 21. I said that I had served five years and that if I was not good enough they could sack me at the end of the week. Surely that same principle should apply to teachers. Either they are trained or they are not. I understand that they do teaching practice during training, so probation seems totally unnecessary.
      446
      Young student teachers are leaving college with no prospect of employment. Instead of debating the new clause, the Government and everyone else concerned should address themselves to the problem of giving these young teachers the chance to teach. Some of those newly qualified teachers will have no opportunity to teach next year and they will therefore have no period of probation. They may be unemployed for two or three years. What will happen to them? We are discussing the wrong subject.
      I made a joke during the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I said that I went to a public school. On a Saturday morning I used to deliver meat to Haileybury College, so I had the experience of seeing a public school. What I found most remarkable about it were the facilities available for the children. I left school at 14, and that experience made me realise how many deprived children there were in the country. I have always said that I wanted not the abolition of the public schools but the opportunity for every child to be educated in a school which had the same pupil/teacher ratio as did the best public schools.
      Mr. Stokes: I know Haileybury I was there before the hon. Gentleman was. Nowadays, if we dispassionately examine our modern State schools, we find that they are usually infinitely better and more expensively equipped than are our most famous public schools.
      Mr. Heffer: I doubt very much whether that is so. I want the best education possible for all children, irrespective of their class background.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am interested in the facilities available in public schools. My only experience of public schools is visiting them to defeat them in football and cricket matches. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Independent Schools Organisation in its tracts says that the usual pupil/teacher ratio is 18:1? If that ratio were universalised in the State sector, another 150,000 teachers would be needed.
      Mr. Heffer: I was about to conclude by saying that if the State schools had the same pupil/teacher ratio as the public schools, there would be jobs for the young

      447
      teachers who are at present unemployed. The Government must understand that many of us feel passionately that more teachers should be employed to bring down the number of children in the class.
      We always used to think that we could beat the Haileybury kids when they came to Hertford. They were much better than we were, and I suffered many black eyes because I fought with them. The Haileybury children were well-trained and we did not always win. Perhaps they were better trained in playing cricket than we were in the local school.
      The important issue is not the clause but what we can do for the young student teachers who are faced with unemployment. On that basis the probationary year is unnecessary.
      Dr. Boyson: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). The clause has nothing to do with compulsory comprehensive reorganisation. It is a tidying-up which some of us feel could have been done by a previous Government and which we think should be added to the Bill. In the long term the clause could be of considerable advantage.
      Over the years there have been changes in the training of teachers. The length of time spent in the college of education has been increased to three years. There has been an extension of probation and the bringing in of compulsory diplomas for graduates—apart from those studying the "shortage" subjects of maths and science.
      What is basic in teacher training is the ability to teach in the class room, irrespective of theory. I have always considered that the year's probationary teaching was beneficial for long-term efficiency and for judging whether a person should continue in the profession.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that at the end of three years students should be sufficiently trained as teachers. I was a member of the Select Committee on Education. Almost all the bodies that gave evidence complained about the lack of in-service training in the class room during the student's three years in the college of education.
      6.15 p.m.
      Dr. Boyson: That is true, but I am trying to keep to the new clause. Most hon. Members who have had experience of teaching are concerned about the lack of practical experience in colleges of education.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to teachers who moved to independent schools as refugees. The college of education is sometimes a refugee centre for those who cannot stand the pace of inner city schools. It might be a good idea for a student to have a one-year probation period before going to college to enable him to see whether he has the temperament to cope, and then to have theoretical training with a one-year probation period at the end.
      The present system of teacher training is rather like studying for the first mate's certificate in the Merchant Navy—it is non-transferable. Young teachers who have had three years' training sometimes find when they get into a school that they cannot cope with the problems, but there is nowhere else they can go without going back almost to the beginning of their training.
      Mr. Flannery: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should go back to the pre-war method of the pupil-teacher, when trainee teachers were used as cheap labour and qualified teachers were out of work, and innocent children were taught by people who had had no training in how to teach.
      Dr. Boyson: I always welcome the interventions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), knowing that he has had practical experience of teaching. I always try to educate him further about the theoretical and practical aspects. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting a probationary period of a year, with a first-class master teacher in the class room. It would be an apprenticeship, and the teacher would be paid. I am not suggesting that the probationer should replace the teacher. The apprentice teacher would gain the experience of seeing a good teacher at work and realise the possibilities of what could be achieved. That would raise the status of the class room profession.
      The trouble with teaching is that as soon as a teacher is promoted he leaves

      449
      the class room. On scale 2 he gets the key to the stock room cupboard and when he gets a headmastership he takes the morning assembly. The only way to raise the teacher's status is by showing that it is the teacher who is important. I am not suggesting cheap labour or shortening the period of training. I have always been concerned to raise the status of the person who does the job of a class room teacher.
      The point at issue is whether the Secretary of State should have the power of dispensation or whether it should be automatic, and that point was taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold). A teacher who does a probationary year in a well-controlled country school has a completely different experience inside the maintained sector from a teacher in a large ghetto school in London. There is no equality of experience. To say that it is easier to teach in an independent school than anywhere in the State sector is a slight upon the State sector. The hon. Member for Hillsborough might even agree with me on that, and it always delights me when that happens.
      Eighty per cent. of State schools are running well. It is the 20 per cent. and the possibility of that proportion increasing that worries us. Hon. Members have mentioned the pupil-teacher ratio. One of the reasons for the large classes of 40 is the tendency to have, for example, six senior members of the staff doing pastoral work. That is one of the big problems in the large comprehensive schools. Senior teachers have ceased to teach in a reasonable timetable.
      Hon. Members have talked about the 18:1 ratio in independent schools. I do not argue with that. The proportion of pupils to teachers in the inner London secondary schools is 14·6:1 and in the country as a whole that drops to 14·7:1. So the old idea of the 40:1 pupil-teacher ratio does not at present exist. The teachers are there, but perhaps they are not being used as they should be. We should be better in this debate to talk of how to use the teachers we have and to make them effective instead of attempting to change form organisation. We should ensure that the teachers we have are effectively used in the classrooms.
      450
      If I ever return to headship I shall offer a job to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridgo (Mr. Stokes) because of his ability in bowling a length. Perhaps that is important in schools. I shall keep an eye on his future career, although I realise that there is competition for his services and a great desire by hon. Members that he should teach cricket and irregular Latin verbs in their constituencies.
      There will be no transfers if obstacles are placed in their way. The obstacle that existed until two or three years ago was that a graduate could teach in a school on his degree without training. He could teach immediately, but if he took a teacher training course and failed, he could not teach on his degree. That was one reason why graduates did not take teacher training courses. They preferred to teach on their degree and to have a passport to teach for life.
      Someone who has taught for many years in an independent school might, even without Left-wing ideas, want to move to a comprehensive school. But he would find that although he had taught in an independent school and although there was a dispensation, he was not able to move automatically from one side to the other. Many schools in the independent sector are no easier to teach in than those in the maintained sector.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South asked how teachers moving from independent to the maintained sector were to be tested. What are inspectors for? In the State sector teachers are approved by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. There are also local inspectors, of whom I am always suspicious because they appoint the people in the first place. I therefore prefer the impartial State inspectors because they do not work for the local authority. Independent schools are also visited by the inspectorate, which is more stringent in its inspection of independent schools than of maintained schools. The problems raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South do not arise because the inspectorate is responsible for passing the teachers.
      The more experience that teachers have outside teaching the better. Careers teachers in particular should have worked in industry. Experiments have been conducted on those lines and they originated in the independent sector. A teacher

      451
      moving from the independent sector to the State sector introduces a new feeling into the school and brings with him new ideas. Such cross-fertilisation can do nothing but good.
      The new clause is not a wrecking clause. All we are asking is that the probationary period be as automatic as it is in the State sector, when someone has done a year, been seen by the headmaster and the inspectors and is passed. The ratios in State schools have become better and many of the larger schools have excellent facilities. Since the gap is closing, let us close it further by ensuring that the probationary period in the independent recognised schools is operated as automatically as it is in the State sector.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I propose to reply briefly. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that distresses the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). The Opposition's motto is "Never mind the quality, feel the width". The purpose of a debate on a new clause is to discuss its contents, not to have a Cook's tour round education, although that may be an old-fashioned view.
      There is a straightforward disagreement between the two sides. As the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, the regulations were introduced in 1959 under a Conservative Government. The point at issue in the new clause is that under existing statutes and regulations the probationary period which a teacher serves is defined as taking place in a maintained school—and I take the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about whether there should be a probationary period. Some hon. Members see that as a considerable and insuperable barrier to teachers transferring from the independent to the maintained sector, but I do not share that view. They seem to think that if the regulations were changed, fresh opportunities would be created in employment.
      The difficulty for teachers who are already in the independent sector and for
      students newly emerged from teacher training college is the availability of jobs in the maintained sector. The question of whether the regulations can be waived if a teacher has served in an independent school follows almost automatically. I find it hard to see how the Opposition argument would increase employment opportunities.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: What does the hon. Lady mean by "almost" automatically? The word "almost" could be extremely significant in this context.
      Miss Jackson: I understand that in no case has a local authority applied for a teacher to have the probationary period waived and had the application refused. If I am wrong, I shall communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Almost the only Opposition Member who seemed to take the point—I hope that my saying this will not damage his career—was the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), who said that we were discussing whether this should be something which was granted when asked for by a local authority, or whether it should be an automatic right for every teacher. That is indeed the point.
      It is our view that the right is at present vested with the Secretary of State but exercised almost exclusively by the LEA. The local authorities, as employers and the only people who can offer such a teacher the opportunity of employment in the maintained sector, are the right people also to apply for him to have his probationary period waived. That is the matter of disagreement between us.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will seek to withdraw the motion. If not, I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
      Mr. James Tinn Mr. James Tinn (Redcar) 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 277, Noes 239.

      Division No. 206.]

      AYES

      [6.35 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Allaun, Frank

      Ashley, Jack

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Archer, Peter

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bates, Alf

      Bean, R. E.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

      Beith, A. J.

      Graham, Ted

      Moyle, Roland

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Newens, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Boardman, H.

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Harper, Joseph

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Ovenden, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Hoy

      Padley, Walter

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hatton, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Parry, Robert

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      Pendry, Tom

      Buchanan, Richard

      Horam, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Campbell, Ian

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

      Huckfield, Les

      Radice, Giles

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Carter, Ray

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cartwright, John

      Hunter, Adam

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Janner, Greville

      Rooker, J. W.

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roper, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Rose, Paul B.

      Conlan, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Corbett, Robin

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Selby, Harry

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Judd, Frank

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Kerr, Russell

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Lamble, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lamond, James

      Silverman, Julius

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Small, William

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lee, John

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Litterick, Tom

      Stoddart, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stott, Roger

      Dunn, James A.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Strang, Gavin

      Dunnett, Jack

      Luard, Evan

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Edge, Geoff

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McElhone, Frank

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ennals, David

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McGuIre, Michael (Ince)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tomlinson, John

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Torney, Tom

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Madden, Max

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Magee, Bryan

      Urwin, T. W.

      Flannery, Martin

      Mahon, Simon

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marquand, David

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Ward, Michael

      Forrester, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Watkins, David

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Watkinson, John

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

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Weetch, Ken

      Freeson, Reginald

      Meacher, Michael

      Weitzman, David

      Freud, Clement

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mendelson, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mikardo, Ian

      White, James (Pollok)

      George, Bruce

      Millan, Bruce

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Whitlock, William

      Ginsburg, David

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Golding, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Gould, Bryan

      Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      454

      455

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Woodall, Alec

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mr. Peter Snape.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Hector

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Alison, Michael

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gray, Hamish

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Arnold, Tom

      Grieve, Percy

      Morgan, Geraint

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Banks, Robert

      Hall, Sir John

      Neave, Airey

      Bell, Ronald

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neubert, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Tony

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hannam, John

      Nott, John

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Blaker, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Body, Richard

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Percival, Ian

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Holland, Philip

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Brittan, Leon

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Raison, Timothy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hunt, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Buck, Antony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Budgen, Nick

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Bulmer Esmond

      James, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Burden F. A.

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

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Channon, Paul

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kilfedder, James

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kimball, Marcus

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Cockcroft, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Cordle, John H.

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Scott, Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Corrie, John

      Knox, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Critchley, Julian

      Lane, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sims, Roger

      Crowder, F. P.

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Speed, Keith

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Spence, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sproat, Iain

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Durant, Tony

      Luce, Richard

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Stanley, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Elliott, Sir William

      MacGregor, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Stokes, John

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Farr, John

      Madel, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mates, Michael

      Tebbit, Norman

      Forman, Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Maude, Angus

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Fox, Marcus

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mawby, Ray

      Trotter, Neville

      Fry, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gardiner Edward (S Fylde)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Viggers, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mills, Peter

      Wakenam, John

      Goodhart Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wall, Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moate, Roger

      Walters, Dennis

      456

      457

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wells, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Younger. Hon George

      Mr. Fred Silvester.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 276.

      Division No. 207.]

      AYES

      [6.46 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Alison, Michael

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Arnold, Tom

      Gorst, John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mills, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gray, Hamish

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Banks, Robert

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

      Bell, Ronald

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Monro, Hector

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Grist, Ian

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Biffen, John

      Hall, Sir John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Blaker, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Body, Richard

      Hampaon, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hannam, John

      Mudd, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Neave, Airey

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Nelson, Anthony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neubert, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Brittan, Leon

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nott, John

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Buck, Antony

      Hordern, Peter

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Budgen, Nick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Burden, F. A.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Percival, Ian

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hunt, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hurd, Douglas

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Channon, Paul

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Churchill, W. S.

      James, David

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

      Raison, Timothy

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Clegg, Walter

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cockcrolt, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Cordle, John H.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kilfedder, James

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Corrie, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Critchley, Julian

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Crouch, David

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Knox, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lamont, Norman

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Lane, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton William (Streatham)

      Durant, Tony

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Silvester, Fred

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lloyd, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveridge, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Luce, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Farr, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Spence, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fox, Marcus

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Marten, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fry, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mather, Carol

      Stokes, John

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Maude, Angus

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Tapsell, Peter

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wakeham, John

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Wall, Patrick

      Younger, Hon George

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Walters, Dennis

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Warren, Kenneth

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Trotter, Neville

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wells, John

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ennals, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lee, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Archer, Peter

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Ashley, Jack

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Litterick, Tom

      Ashton, Joe

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Flannery, Martin

      Luard, Evan

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Bates, Alf

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bean, R. E.

      Ford, Ben

      McElhone, Frank

      Beith, A. J.

      Forrester, John

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

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

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Freud, Clement

      Maclennan, Robert

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Boardman, H.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Madden, Max

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      George, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mahon, Simon

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Bradley, Tom

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gould, Bryan

      Marquand, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Buchan, Norman

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Buchanan, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Campbell, Ian

      Hardy, Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harper, Joseph

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cant, R. B.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Millan, Bruce

      Carmichael, Nell

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Carter, Ray

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hatton, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cartwright, John

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Moyle, Roland

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hooley, Frank

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Coleman, Donald

      Horam, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Concannon, J. D.

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      Conlan, Bernard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Oakes Gordon

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Corbett, Robin

      Huckfield, Les

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cronin, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ovenden, John

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hunter, Adam

      Padley, Walter

      Cryer, Bob

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Parry, Robert

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davidson, Arthur

      Janner, Greville

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pendry, Tom

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Perry, Ernest

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      John, Brynmor

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Deakins, Eric

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Radice, Giles

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dormand, J. D.

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kerr, Russell

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dunn, James A.

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lambie, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roper, John

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lamond, James

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      460

      461

      Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Selby, Harry

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Whitlock, William

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tierney, Sydney

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Tinn, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tomlinson, John

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Silverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Woodall, Alec

      Small, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Wool, Robert

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ward, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Watkins, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stott, Roger

      Watkinson, John

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Strang, Gavin

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Weitzman, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 15

      APPEALS BOARD
      '(1) An appeals board shall be established by each local education authority; and the board shall comprise one member of another local education authority, one teacher not employed by the local authority establishing the board, and one other person of local standing not being a member of any local authority.
      (2) A parent may, if dissatisfied with the maintained school place, whether primary or secondary, allocated to his child by the local education authority, appeal to the Appeals Board established for his area for reconsideration, and where considered appropriate by the board, reallocate for a school place.
      (3) If the parent is still dissatisfied with the allocation of school place as recommended by the Appeals Board, he may then appeal to the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we can also discuss New Clause 66—(Appeals committee).
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: New Clause 15 and New Clause 66 deal with the question of appeals by parents who are dissatisfied with the allocation of schools. They are, in fact, two different means of achieving the same end.
      Throughout the web of Conservative education policy there is one golden thread which can always be seen, and that is that the right to educate children belongs to the parents, and not to the State. It is true, of course, in the highly
      462
      complex conditions of modern society, that this is a right which has to be delegated to others, but the fact that a right has been delegated does not destroy it: the right remains. There is a distinction, both philosophically and legally, between the existence of a right and its exercise.
      On this question of the parental role in education we believe that parents not only have a right but also a duty. Parents are willing to discharge this duty, by and large, if only they have the opportunity to do so. It is essential to parents' self-respect that they should be regarded as responsible for the education of their children. Perhaps the most important thing which most people do during the course of their lives is to undertake responsibility for bringing up another person, and transmitting values to the next generation of society.
      It is a sad reflection on the Government's priorities that here we have a major Education Bill in which parents are not mentioned at all. I would not go so far as to apply to hon. Members opposite the phrase used by Bagehot of Macaulay, that he seemed to regard the existence of people as a painful prerequisite for great-grandchildren. However, I sometimes think that there is an element of that kind in the approach of the Secretary of State, who regards children as necessary prerequisites for comprehensive schools, rather than the other way round. I do not claim an exclusive interest in parental rights, or say that concern about parents is confined to this side of the House. I think that there are other hon. Members in different parts of the House who are concerned about this matter.
      Mr. Marcus Lipton: They are not here now.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Well, they have to eat. I admit I have seen this Chamber more crowded, even when I am speaking.
      I do not make this as an exclusive claim, but I do claim on behalf of the Opposition that we have taken the initiative and given a lead in this respect. We have tried our best to get the education debate away from this dreary groove in which it has been placed by the present Secretary of State—a groove of only comprehensive and grammar schools. There are other areas of much greater importance for the majority of people who are concerned with education.
      New Clause 15 is just one of a number in which we are attempting to widen this Bill in order to give it a constructive content, and to move away from the narrow obsession of imposing comprehensive schools everywhere without regard to parental wishes, local conditions or financial constraints.
      On 12th August 1974 on behalf of the Opposition I launched the parents' charter at Stockport. It has since been the subject of debate in this House and also the subject of a Private Member's Bill. We have endeavoured consistently to persuade the Government to accept the charter over the past two years. There will be other new clauses which we will discuss and which embody various parts of that charter, but New Clause 15 and New Clause 66 are attempts to embody the first principle of the charter which says:
      "First, we will amend Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, in order to create clearer obligations on the State and local authorities to take account of parental wishes. We will provide that education authorities will follow the wishes of parents unless the cost or the educational needs of the pupils make it unreasonable so to do. We will provide a system of appeals so that parents who are dissatisfied, either with allocation of schools or with other educational matters concerning their children have an opportunity to make their voice heard."
      Mr. Mulley: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I cannot see in either of the new clauses any attempt to amend or change Section 76 of the 1944 Act. In fact, there is no reference to any amendment of Section 76.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Secretary of State is his usual precipitant and vigilant self. I was referring to the second part of the paragraph from the charter. The second part I quoted to the House deals directly with the appeals procedure which stems from Section 76. The general principle of Section 76 says that regard should be paid to parents' wishes in the choice of schools etcetera. The new clauses are a particularisation of that principle. I hope that will clear up the confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
      Mr. Lipton: I am still confused.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would like to help the hon. Gentleman if I could. He is very charming and very winning and I will do anything—
      Mr. Mulley: Give him a pair.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will do anything except give him a pair. Anyway, he is very interested in educational matters so I am sure he will not want a pair. I am sure he has nothing better to do than to listen to me.
      Mr. Mulley: The point of my observation was that perhaps my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman would pair.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I reserve my favours such as they are for the right hon. Gentleman.
      One of the reasons why this appeals procedure is necessary and urgent is the zoning system which has grown and has become so rigid. In case the Secretary of State gets confused, he will be pleased to know that it is the sixth principle of the charter that zoning arrangements should be flexible and that Governments should scrutinise them to avoid rigid zoning. It is precisely because this zoning system, which has no clear legal basis, has become so rigid that there are so many parents dissatisfied with choice of schools. The legal basis of zoning is rather obscure, but, by a strange paradox, it seems to have grown up on a reading of Section 76 of the 1944 Act.
      Section 76 was intended, of course, to extend and confirm the rights of parents, but, unfortunately, it said not only that the Secretary of State and local authorities should have regard to the general principles that children were to be

      465
      educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents; it added the words
      "so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure".
      That has been subject to very narrow interpretation, which has resulted in a restrictive zoning system growing up. Yet it was a former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), who told a House of Commons Standing Committee on 23rd April 1970 that school catchment areas were not a concept known to law. In spite of that, almost all local authorities tend to draw up these catchment areas.
      Here, we are invoking the law to right what I think has become a distortion of the system, and it is interesting to observe that paragraph 10 of the Manual of Guidance for Schools, which was first issued by the Department of Education in 1950, says:
      "Nor would it be compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training if the school of the parent's choice or the class which the child would enter were full. It is in fact sometimes necessary to restrict the choice of schools available to the children of a neighbourhood by zoning or de-limiting the areas to be served by particular schools. It may indeed be necessary under the zoning scheme for some children to attend a school other than that nearest to their homes."
      The manual goes on in the very next paragraph to make it quite clear that this is a power that should be used in a limited way. It says:
      "Assuming, as the Minister, does, that local education authorities will confine such restricttions to districts in which they are clearly necessary to avoid overcrowding at schools or particular classes in them or to avoid places being taken up which can reasonably be said to be needed for pupils living within the zone, that such factors as traffic dangers will be taken fully into account and that care will be taken to meet reasonable denominational preferences and exceptional cases, the existence of a zoning arrangement would be a factor—no more—which the Minister would take into account in deciding any case which might be referred to him. On the other hand, he considers that when a zoning scheme is first introduced children who live outside the zone but already attend the school concerned should normally be allowed to stay there."
      Lastly, and most important of all, it says:
      "These schemes should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are discontinued when the occasion for them has passed."
      466
      We can see there that the view of the Department of Education was, and, I hope, still is—perhaps we shall be enlightened about this when we hear from the Minister—that zoning is a creature of necessity, and that as soon as that necessity is over it should be done away with but that, meanwhile, it will be narrowly confined within stated parameters.
      7.15 p.m.
      The same principle is found in Circular 268, which was sent out by the Minister in 1953. That says:
      "The Minister recognises that in present circumstances the introduction of a zoning scheme for primary schools and sometimes also for secondary schools in an authority's area may be necessary at times when there is temporary pressure on school accommodation. He is satisfied that in general local education authorities introduce such restrictions only when the need justifies them and that they are anxious to remove them at the earliest opportunity. There can be no doubt however, that the establishment of zone boundaries is a matter of deep public concern in those areas where they are introduced."
      By looking at the situation both legally and historically we can see that this zoning was in origin a temporary expedient to meet an emergency situation, but, as so often with temporary expedients, what was thought of as an emergency measure has now become part and parcel of the system. One of the reasons for the introduction of this new clause, though not the only one, is to modify the rigidities of the zoning system.
      What happens at present? When a parent has expressed a preference for a secondary school—for example, during the child's last year at primary school—the parent, unless he is of exceptional character, simply waits to hear from the education officer concerned. If when the parent hears of the allocation he does not like it, he can object to the local education officer. The vast majority of local education officers do their jobs conscientiously and well, but I am afraid that there is a minority who think in terms of the convenience of administration rather than in terms of the needs of the child. That is why a further check is necessary.
      At present, it is possible, of course, to write to a local councillor, to approach the chairman of the education committee or to write to a Member of Parliament. We all have many instances of people

      467
      approaching us who are dissatisfied with the choice of school. In my own case, about 30 per cent. of my surgery cases in Chelmsford are on this issue—
      Mr. Noble: Selective.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The area is not a selective one. It is a model area which shows that comprehensive and selective schools can exist side by side quite happily.
      Mr. Noble: Nonsense.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not nonsense. It is a fact. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) is so blinded by prejudice that not even the most obvious facts can make any impression on him. The fact is that in Chelmsford we have excellent grammar schools and excellent comprehensive schools. Some of the strongest supporters of the grammar schools are heads of comprehensive schools. So the system works. It works also in Colchester, in Bristol and in other parts of the country. The hon. Member should pay some attention to the facts, and seek to escape from the obfuscations of prejudice which are preventing him from seeing the issue clearly.
      Mr. Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to us the difference between selective schools, which select children, and non-selective schools—which take the children who have not been selected because they have not passed the examination—and which are called comprehensive schools. How can we have a comprehensive system if the children have already been selected?
      Mrs. Renée Short Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East) rose—
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was intending to give the hon. Lady a separate withdrawal, if I may say so, in a moment.
      Mrs. Short: Oh, I say!
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor if he wishes to answer the question.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am flattered by the eagerness of Members to interrupt me, but I must deal with them in strictly chronological order.
      The hon. Member for Rossendale is posing a false dilemma. It is true that if
      468
      we have a system by which 30 per cent. or so of the children in a defined area go to selective schools and 70 per cent., say, go to non-selective schools, we could argue with some degree of reason that we cannot have comprehensive schools. But when we have a system by which the number of children going to selective schools is less than 10 per cent.—as, for example, in Chelmsford and Bristol—it is quite possible to have different types of school and to have a sufficient measure or spread of ability. These are the facts of the situation.
      Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
      Mrs. Renée Short Mrs. Renée Short rose—
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman must ask for a further explanation, but not during my speech. I give way to the hon. Lady.
      Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Gentleman was telling us how excellently everything works in his area, but he has just told us that he has a large number of cases at his surgery concerning the problem of allocation to schools. If the system is so marvellous in his area, why are so many of the parents dissatisfied?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady's interruption certainly has a point, as do all her interruptions. I have not said that I thought the system was perfect. Of course there are flaws in the system. But, generally speaking, the complaints I have had concerning allocation of schools are not from parents dissatisfied because their child has or has not gone to a grammar school. They are complaints because it is not the school nearest their home, or because they want a single-sex school, or perhaps prefer one type of comprehensive school to another. It may be, again, that one school has a good reputation and another has not.
      I do not blame the hon. Lady. It is the Secretary of State who polarises this whole discussion as thought it were just a question of comprehensive and grammar schools. What parents want is a choice of different schools, whether they be comprehensive, selective, or otherwise.
      Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
      Mr. Ivor Clemitson Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East) rose—
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will give way to the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson).
      Mr. Clemitson: I refer to parental choice and the interpretation of Section 76 of the Education Act 1944. Let us suppose that there is a system which is comprehensive and a parent has been offered the choice of several different schools within that comprehensive system Let us suppose, further, that the parent refuses all of them and refuses to send the child to any school within the total system. In those circumstances, would the hon. Gentleman think it right, bearing in mind Section 76, that the local authority should make sufficient funds available to enable that parent to send the child to a private school?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Naturally, one would have to look at the facts of any particular case. But certainly—it is guaranteed by a number of sections of the various Education Acts—if a local authority thinks it in the best interests of a child to take up a place in the private sector for educational reasons, the local authority is entitled to make such a decision. In fact, there was a recent case—it may be the one the hon. Gentleman has in mind—which went to court. The decision was in favour of the child going to an independent school. But the adjudication there was clear.
      Mr. Clemitson: With respect, the decision—
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that it would be profitable to discuss particular cases, but the general principle is clear—local authorities have every right to decide in a particular case, if they think it in the interests of the child, that the child should go to an independent school rather than to a maintained school. They have the right to do so, and that is a very reasonable position.
      The child may need boarding care. Very little of that is available in the maintained sector. Most of it is provided in the private sector. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will endeavour to make his case in due course.
      The parent who is dissatisfied with the allocation of school for any reason will in fact go back to the education committee. But what does he find? He
      470
      finds that advising the education committee is the same education officer, who would be confirming his previous decision. I am not saying that this is not done conscientiously: I am sure that it is. But it is deeply unsatisfactory to parents to find that there is not an independent adjudication on their case.
      Of course, there is an appeal to the Secretary of State. We know that this exists under the present law. It is referred to in the manual of guidance. But the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that if I write to him about a case in my constituency, the first thing he will do will be to get in touch with the local education authority. The advice he will get will then come from the same education officer who has already been involved in all stages of the proceedings. This is not very satisfactory to a dissatisfied parent.
      What is needed is some separate impartial appeal procedure, by which the education officers are witnesses along with the parents and others, but no more than that. They must not be judges in their own cause. That is the essence of the principle behind these two clauses.
      We have set down these clauses in a definite form because one must set down proposals in a definite form in order to be within the rules of order.
      Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am rather puzzled about the second part of New Clause 15. At the end it says:
      "reallocate for a school place".
      Who does the reallocation? Is it the parents, the local authority, or the appeals board? Frankly, this part of the clause just does not make sense. I do not know how we can consider a matter of this kind when the wording is virtually a complete nonsense.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not say that the wording is perfect.
      Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to move a clause of this kind which is grammatically incorrect and rubbish? We are all aware of the ability of the hon. Gentleman, but I recall that in Committee his grammar had to be corrected by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Surely it is so incorrect that at this stage—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are selected in accordance with Mr. Speaker's discretion.
      Mr. Noble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see how there can be a further point of order when there was no point of order to start with.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that we may consider this not as a partisan matter but as a matter of principle about which hon. Members on both sides are concerned.
      Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee and I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is by way of being a grammarian and, therefore, does not like bad grammar. We are utterly confused, and therefore this is a sincere point of order. The fundamental effect of the sentence is to say that
      "A parent may … reallocate for a school place."
      Will the hon. Gentleman explain what that means?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker is not concerned with drafting. He is concerned only with selection.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that I can help the hon. Member in so far as he has a genuine difficulty on this matter. I have made clear that we are not wedded to a particular form of words, but we are wedded to the principle of having an independent tribunal on this matter.
      Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Really, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is an abuse of the rules of order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have not yet heard what the point of order is I am unable to decide on that.
      Mr. Noble: Surely it is in order for hon. Members fully to understand what is being debated—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Happily that is not a matter over which the Chair has any control.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that we may resume this discussion and that the Chair will take note, should an attempt be made to move the closure on this debate, of the amount of time that has been wasted by futile and frivolous interruptions.
      If the Secretary of State will give some undertaking that he will seriously look at the question of an appeals board and that he will come forward at an appropriate stage with wording of his own we shall be delighted.
      The clause suggests that each local education authority would set up and service an appeals board. One reason for adopting this procedure is to avoid creating a large bureaucracy. We have quite enough bureaucracy as it is without adding to it. We want the board to be as simple and as informal as possible. It is suggested that the members of the board would include a councillor from a neighbouring education authority; it is important that he should not be from the authority which is the subject of a dispute. We suggest, too, that there should be a teacher. Here, too, it is important that the teacher should not be employed by the local education authority in question. In addition, there should be another person of some standing in the community locally. It could be a magistrate, or a well-known voluntary worker, someone who has shown an interest in community service. It could be someone in the St. John Ambulance Brigade, or one of the other voluntary organisations. These voluntary organisations preserve the whole sense of community locally. The people in them have shown their concern with the community and are prepared to give up their time voluntarily and freely.
      We envisage that under this clause appeals could be made against the allocation of primary or secondary school places. The appeals board would reconsider and, where appropriate, reallocate. It is quite clear that the reallocation should be done by the appeals board. That is one possibility—
      Mrs. Renée Short: We do not like that, Norman.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Lady does not like it, I shall leave it and turn at once to New Clause 66 and hope that this commands greater favour in the Wolverhampton area—in the better part of

      473
      Wolverhampton as well as the worse part, and I shall not be so undiplomatic as to suggest which part is which.
      Under New Clause 66 the Secretary of State has the duty to set up an appeals committee. That is in contrast to the previous clause by which the burden would be put upon the local education authority. There are arguments in favour of both courses of action. I suppose that in most cases the Secretary of State would delegate the task to the local education authority. Under New Clause 66 the committee would be composed of three members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultations with the local authority, but here again it would be essential that this should be an independent committee and that it should not contain members involved in the dispute. The procedure would be laid down by the Secretary of State. There is a subsection which would oblige the local education authority to observe the views of the appeals committee. These would be enforceable in the courts, but we would hope that in the vast majority of cases it would be unnecessary to resort to that.
      I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to this point. Our proposals seek to meet a real need among parents. The parents may feel dissatisfaction with a particular school, or because there has been no impartial review of the case; that could cause resentment. We are making a constructive attempt to meet that objection and to supply that need while giving effect to the principle to which I referred.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend envisage that the appeals board would be full-time or part-time? As I see it there is so much dissatisfaction with many of these schools that great queues of people will want to get on to the merry-go-round, moving from one school to another in the vain hope that they will find a better school somewhere else. If that happens the appeals board will be working very long hours.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not take that rather depressing view of our educational system. The majority of schools are good, and the majority of parents are satisfied with them. There are a minority who are not.
      474
      I hope that this would be a part-time board. I would not use the words "merry-go-round", but an appeals committee would be valuable not only on the first application, but for subsequent dissatisfaction. What may have been satisfactory one year could become unsatisfactory later because of changes in the home or the school.
      I hope that we shall have a constructive response from the Secretary of State. We did not have the pleasure of his company, wisdom or advice in Committee, and we hope that he will make up for that now. I hope that he will give us a definitive statement on the vital subject of appeals which concerns a large majority of parents in all parts of the country.
      Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friends and I agree that the parental role in education is of very great importance. Perhaps I can say that with even more force than can the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), because I am a parent, though that is not a unique claim. Parental support of children at home and for their schools is very important and we accept the provision for parental choice set out in Section 76 of the 1944 Act.
      There is no provision for parental choice in the Bill because the wording of Section 76 and the general drafting of the 1944 Act are extremely good and elegant, as Lord Butler once said. I have also heard the lion. Member for Chelmsford pay tribute to the drafting of that Act and I am modest enough to believe that I could not improve upon it.
      The draftsmen of the new clauses could learn something from the wording of the 1944 Act. However, my objections to the new clauses are not based on their drafting. I understand that they were drafted in haste and I appreciate that mistakes can occur in such circumstances.
      It would be inappropriate to rehearse on every new clause the main purpose of the Bill—the question of comprehensive and selective education. I am anxious to give the House the benefit of my views on this matter, and the sooner we get to Clause 1, the better I shall be pleased. We can engage in that discussion then.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford sounded a little extravagant when he said that 30 per cent. of parents in his constituency were dissatisfied.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Secretary of State should not make such wild assertions. They ill befit the high office he holds. I said that 30 per cent. of the cases which came to me at my surgery were concerned with schools. That is a very different statistic from the one quoted by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Mulley: If that happened in my constituency, I should be a bit worried about the kind of educational system in operation there. I wonder whether the complaints made to the hon. Member might be because of the 11-plus and the selective system, which still exists in the Chelmsford constituency.
      7.45 p.m.
      What worries me more than anything about these new clauses, which are posed as alternatives, is the undemocratic nature of what they propose. It is suggested that the vital decision concerning which school children should attend should be left to a totally unrepresentative body of three people who would not be responsible to the local electors, the governors or managers of schools, the teachers, or anybody else.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: What about Tameside?
      Mr. Mulley: It would be quite improper for me to refer to the Tameside issue while it is sub judice. We shall be able to discuss it at a later date. If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) wishes to say something, that is up to him, but it would be wrong for me to say anything relating to an issue now before the courts.
      Mr. Montgomery: I merely wanted to say that it comes ill from the Secretary of State to talk about this panel having little local support because it would be non-elected in view of his cavalier treatment of the wishes of the electorate of Tameside.
      Mr. Mulley: If that were the only issue in Tameside, the hon. Gentleman would be right and the question of Section 68 would not have arisen, but there are many factors involved besides the wishes of the electorate. These wishes count, too, but the hon. Gentleman knows about the other issues. If he has not seen a copy of my letter to the education authority, I shall ensure that he
      476
      receives a copy, but I cannot pursue this matter any further.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Secretary of State is complaining about the undemocratic nature of the proposed board, yet throughout the Government service there are undemocratic appeal boards, set up by Governments of both parties. The very nature of an appeal board means that it stands above the political battle.
      Mr. Mulley: That may be the view of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), but it is wrong for elected local authorities and governors and managers, who do an excellent job, to have their decisions on the allocation of pupils overridden by people who are not representative of electors or governors.
      Most local authorities already have effective machinery for allocating school places and for hearing appeals. It is right that a local authority should work out its own arrangements for these purposes. We have recently introduced into a whole range of local government work the Local Commissioner for Administration to deal with complaints of maladministration and some questions involved in the allocation of school places may be taken before him.
      New Clause 15 would take away that right. The choice of school would be taken out of his ambit. I am sure that that is not the wish of the Opposition, but that is my understanding of the consequence of the new clause.
      Mr. Leon Brittan: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take these matters away from the Local Commissioner for Administration, bearing in mind that he says that the commissioner is totally undemocratic? According to what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously, it would seem completely inappropriate and out of accord with the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy to allow the commissioner to play the role that he now plays.
      Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself credit by the quality of his argument. He knows perfectly well that one of the difficulties about the proposed appeals courts is that no criteria are set out for them in the clauses before

      477
      us. They are proposed on an entirely unspecified basis whereas the circumstances in which a local commissioner may involve himself are specifically spelt out by statute. Indeed, in matters of maladministration there are precedents. I make these points because I do not think that we shall get any further in assisting parents by having the cumbersome machinery that is proposed.
      We know that there are problems in many areas. They arise largely because more parents want their children to go to one school rather than another, for a variety of reasons, sound or less sound. They have a feeling that one school has better teachers, better facilities, or enjoys a better reputation. If the school can hold X number of children, clearly some parents are bound to be dissatisfied. A school cannot be overcrowded, because if that takes place the esteem will fall and parents will want their children to go to another school. If there is greater demand for school A than school B, someone has to decide that not all of those who want their children to go to school A will be able to send them there and that some other arrangements have to be made.
      Very often those arrangements have nothing to do with comprehensive schools, grammar schools or anything else. Many choices are made on a less than rational basis. After all, why do people select one public school rather than another, or one grammar school rather than another? There has always been an element of choice, and it has always been impossible to satisfy everyone when there are not enough places in a certain school.
      We must consider this matter as it is put to us in the new clauses, and New Clause 66 contradicts New Clause 15. In New Clause 15 the board has to be appointed by the local education committee whereas in New Clause 66 it has to be appointed by the Secretary of State. A right of appeal to the Secretary of State is given in New Clause 15 but not in New Clause 66. If there were to be an appeal board, one would hope that we could be better at deciding how it should operate than are the draftsmen of the new clauses. I note that three of the names to one new clause are identical to three of the names to the other. With the possibility of a large number of dis-
      478
      satisfied parents—one understands that in any circumstances there may be those who are dissatisfied—I do not think that the Opposition's proposals would add to the harmony and smooth working of education. I believe that they would lead to great and substantial difficulties.
      I yield to no one in stressing the importance of parental involvement in the education of children. However, I am not convinced that the clauses, even if they were re-drafted, would do any more than complicate and possibly even add friction to what in some areas one understands is often a difficult problem.
      I cannot recommend the House to accept either of the alternative clauses. Indeed, I was not sure whether the first was moved. At one moment the hon. Member for Chelmsford said that if my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) did not like it, he would withdraw it. In that event, we shall have to wait a long time—namely, until we reach New Clause 66—until the matter can be determined.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Secretary of State must try to treat this as a serious argument. He must not make these silly, facetious remarks. I had made it clear from the beginning that we are not wedded to a particular form of words. I accept that there is a fault in the wording of the first clause. The Secretary of State knows exactly why that is so—namely, because there was a change of business at the last minute and the Government sprang the Bill on us at short notice. The new clauses had to be drafted quickly. That is the fact of the situation. In this debate we are concerned with principle. I said that if the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication that he was prepared to consider seriously the setting up of an appeal body, we should be glad to withdraw our new clauses and await his deliberations.
      Mr. Mulley: I was not resting my argument on drafting technicalities—indeed, I have raised an issue of great substance. If appeal boards were to be appointed by the local authority or the Secretary of State, surely it is a matter of substance whether there should be an appeal from the decision of the boards or whether, as in New Clause 66, there

      479
      should be no such appeal, the decision of the boards being final. These are matters that we should need to decide before proceeding.
      I do not think that we shall resolve any of these difficulties by new boards of the sort proposed. I believe that the involvement of the Local Commissioner for Administration adds to the remedies that parents pursue. The process of approaching local councillors and Members of Parliament supplements the existing arrangements. Appeal boards would be an additional complication and, in some senses, an administrative nightmare. They would not help to get round what I readily concede is a matter of great difficulty for many parents.
      Mr. David Hunt: I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in introducing the two new clauses. The lead he gives in seeking to establish a charter for parents stands out as a shining example of positive thought as against the negative educational philosophy of the Government. With many of my colleagues, I should like to see more power given to parents. That is surely what the debate should be about.
      The Secretary of State has admitted that he knows that in many areas there are cases of dissatisfaction on the part of parents. I have held 11 surgeries since I was elected in March, and I have had many parents coming forward who are highly indignant and who hold deep feelings about the way in which their children have been allocated school places.
      It is not a case of maladministration. I take the Secretary of State's point that there is a local government ombudsman, but the parents who come to see me do not say that there has been maladministration. I do not believe that the local government ombudsman would take very kindly to having to deal with a deluge or avalanche of such cases as suggested by the Secretary of State. I do not believe that they would be within his province.
      The parents who come to see me—I am sure this is borne out by my colleagues—feel that decisions have been made behind closed doors. They feel that their cases have not had a sufficient airing. I am certain that many parents would be satisfied by the opportunity to go before an appeals board to plead
      480
      their case, an opportunity to talk passionately about the way in which their child has been treated. It would be adding to the participation of parents in the decision-making process.
      The new clauses do three things. First, they recognise parental choice. That should be recognised much more than it appears to be by the Government. Secondly, they would provide an open hearing and an opportunity for the parent to air his or her case about a particular child. Thirdly, there would be an impartial hearing. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the boards being undemocratic. If that were the accusation to be levelled at all public bodies, we should have none. It has to be a body set up in this way that is above the political process, that is able to reach the value judgments which will so certainly be necessary in a case in which passions and feelings run so high.
      8.0 p.m.
      At present, the local education authority—and who can be satisfied with the present system?—is witness, judge and jury all in one. But can anyone be satisfied with the system under which that happens? I am not casting any doubt on the ability of the officials in the local education authorities to make the right decision. I am sure that many of the parents who have been protesting to me have been the subject of correct and right decisions. However, what I seek for those parents is an opportunity for them to air their very strong views before a board such as this—which probably would reach the same conclusion, but that is up to the board as the local education authority. But those parents would be very much more satisfied than they are at present.
      Of the two new clauses I very much prefer New Clause 15.
      Mrs. Renée Short: Time-wasting nonsense. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether it is of assistance to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), but I find it easy to follow subsection (2) of New Clause 15. It says quite clearly:
      "A parent may, if dissatisfied with the maintained school place, whether primary or secondary, allocated to his child by the local education authority, appeal to the Appeals Board".
      I should have thought that that was very sensible.
      Mr. Noble: Finish the quotation.
      Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Rossendale must not burst a blood vessel. The subsection continues:
      "may … appeal to the Appeals Board established for his area for reconsideration, and where considered appropriate by the board, reallocate for a school place".
      I find that very easy to follow.
      At present the Bill takes no account of parental choice. It negates parental choice. All that we now seek by these new clauses is an opportunity to offset that new policy.
      Mr. John Mendelson: In addressing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has used some very strong language on very little ground and without any provocation. Whatever might be said about some of my hon. Friends, certainly the Secretary of State has spoken very quietly and very politely to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is now so accustomed to listening to himself that he is provoked by even the most polite approach and immediately engages in the kind of arrogance we heard in his approach to the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I shall get on when I want to, and hon. Members will learn to listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They will know that the nonsense to which they are treating the House is that they are pretending to talk about education, which very few of them understand. They will not waste the time of the House and of everyone sitting here listening to the nonsense, and biased nonsense at that.
      I am talking to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who is the official spokesman for the Opposition and aspires one day, perhaps, to be Secretary of State for Education and Science. He has a responsibility to conduct himself seriously and to conduct the debate seriously if he wants to be taken seriously. I am not talking to other Opposition Members.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford has failed in one important duty. Although he was arrogant and talked a lot about the Secretary of State, he has failed to give us the basis for the new clauses. I do not care tuppence about the wording of the new clauses. It is perfectly reasonable for an Opposition to say that the Government ought to produce a better
      482
      text if they do not like the precise form of words. There is nothing between us on that matter. However, the hon. Gentleman, instead of wasting over 20 minutes going all around the subject, ought to have provided some background, why he has produced these two alternative new clauses. As he has not done so, the debate ought to start by someone trying to provide some of the background for him. Other hon. Members will have to do it if the debate is to serve a useful purpose at all.
      The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), whose speech I take seriously, has said that he wishes this to be a serious debate. What is the experience of so many right hon. and hon. Members in this matter? My experience is only one among the experiences of many, and not a particularly long one but, perhaps, longer than that of some Opposition Members. Like other hon. Members, I have received some letters from parents and had interviews with them in my part of South Yorkshire. These parents have had strong feelings about the particular choice of school for their boys or girls. I should like to mention one typical case.
      There was a very famous grammar school which has been transformed into a comprehensive school. It is an excellent comprehensive school in the minds of many people who know a great deal about education—a great deal more than I shall ever know about it. Other schools have been put together and formed into new comprehensive schools. Quite naturally, and not to my surprise, a number of parents have said to me "We want our children to go to that school which was previously a very famous grammar school". Who can blame them or be surprised by that?
      We have had, over a period, long discussions, investigations and considerations, and afternoons with the headmaster and with other headmasters, and we have gone into the matter. What have the education authorities done? They have done their job. They have treated these approaches seriously. They have built up the other schools. They have taken parents into their confidence. Everyone has co-operated. What would an appeals board—if that is the name to be used for such a committee as has been proposed—be doing in such a situation? It would be doing nothing at all.

      483
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford knows a good deal about education. He knows that what is proposed would have been no solution. Quite a number of people say to me "We want our child to go to that particular school. It has had a famous name. We want to be associated with it." Unless one had wanted to build that school into a body dealing with 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 children, nothing that one could have done would immediately have satisfied the request of those parents.
      That is one typical case. I know that I shall carry with me all hon. Members who know the situation in what I have just described, be they on the Front Benches or the Back Benches.
      I take another typical group of cases. There are a number of parents who have a special reason for their requests. This is another point which has not yet been made. We are talking as though no machinery is available, but it is. Right hon. and hon. Members play an honourable part in that machinery already. We have all played that part. I do not want to cite what I have done because it might appear, wrongly, as though I have been doing particularly effective work in this field—and that would be quite wrong, because what I am doing is probably no more than average and perhaps not even that. Certainly it is no better than average. Every hon. Member is doing this kind of work.
      People are approaching me and we discuss the problem, and when the problem is urgent, parents sometimes say "Something must be done quickly but the committee has not moved yet". I therefore get on to the local education director or to someone else in a sub-division who is in charge, and the letters cross, as we all know. Somehow or other some parents even believe that I have had something to do with it. It is a difficult task sometimes, as we all know, to persuade parents that I have had nothing to do with it and that the decision was maturing and that the people in the education authority were doing their job. That is very often the case. In some cases they had to consult a doctor.
      There are other sensitive cases where it is not easy for the people concerned to talk about all the details to the parents involved in the way that they might do to
      484
      somebody else. There is nothing more sensitive than talking about one's own children. All that goes on all the time, and any tribunal or appeals body such as is proposed in these clauses would be wholly irrelevant to the class of case that I have described.
      The appeals board would do positive harm, because what would it establish? It would establish the illusion that it is the ill will of people who deal with local education that puts a child into the wrong school, and here I am sure that I shall not carry so many hon. Members with me because what I propose to say will be very much more controversial than my comments so far.
      There is, unfortunately, a good deal of snobbery in some of the criticisms from parents. In some cases, parents fear that the social atmosphere of the school to which their child has been allocated will not be as good as it is in some other school in the area. It is the school and local authorities who ought to make the decision and not a newly created board. The decision ought to be part of the educational policy for the whole area. It is the elected representatives who ought to make a decision, rather than having it made by an additional body, however constituted.
      When the hon. Member for Chelmsford talked about somebody being a member of the St. John Ambulance Brigade, he knew very well that many hon. Members on this side of the House, as well as on his, have members of the family who belong to the brigade and have a background of service in this organisation. He knows that there is nothing between the two sides on that, and he need not have made those remarks.
      The House did not take too kindly to what the hon. Gentleman said, because if we go out of our way to set up boards as suggested we shall find that the representative character of the body making the decision is not as good as the representative character of an elected body. These decisions ought to be made by specialists or by the elected local authority.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that one of the effective results of an appeals body is that it makes sure that the decisions are taken at the first stage by the elected

      485
      representatives instead of, as so often happens, by the local government officer? That happens if those concerned realise that there is an appeals body breathing down their necks. They are more responsible in the taking of decisions and less anxious to pass the responsibility off to the chief education officer.
      Mr. Mendelson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because that leads me to my next point. The hon. Member for Chelmsford made the charge that, at present, no matter who does the investigating the decision is made by the education officer who took action in the first place. It is said that he is judge and jury. But then the hon. Member for Chelmsford went further and said that even if we give the Secretary of State the power to make the final decision he will refer the matter back to the local education authority, which in turn will put the matter to the local education officer. That is not true.
      8.15 p.m.
      At present, when an hon. Member takes up a case—and I know this and can prove it—the matter is not left to the decision of the education officer who dealt with it originally. Our system of local government is much more flexible than that, and it is slanderous to say that all that happens is that bureaucracy takes over. There are of course, tragic cases, as we have seen in the social services. There are tragic cases in the educational system just as there are in the social security system, but when they arise in the latter context we do not have the support of Conservative Members. There are bad cases of bureaucracy. One hears of people being watched to see whether they are cohabiting, but when we raise the question of women's rights we do not have the sympathy of Tory Members to get matters put right, and it is slanderous nonsense to say that bureaucracy stifles everything everywhere.
      When complaints are made to us, or parents come to see us, and we meet the director of education or one of his assistancts, there is present a councillor or some other elected person and the matter is not left in the hands of the education officer who made the original decision. I have received many letters
      486
      of examples of the director of education having to give chapter and verse to show why a decision was made. Very often a doctor is called, or other specialist opinion is sought, and then the decision is changed. In as many cases as not a child is taken out of one school and put into another, but on listening to the hon. Member for Chelmsford one would have thought that we had a system under which no changes ever occurred. It is complete nonsense to think that that is so.
      As my right hon. Friend said, delicate issues are involved in dealing with these matters. Though only a minority of people are involved, because there is nothing more important than the concern of a parent for his or her child the matter must be taken seriously, and these proposals would result in nothing more than ineffectiveness and confusion. The present arrangements are much better and ought to be maintained.
      That does not mean that there is not a need for parents to be associated to a greater extent with activities in the school. That leads one into all sorts of considerations, but not necessarily every right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches would follow those who are educational reformers. Perhaps we may debate that on some other occasion. In the context of the issues under consideration today, it would be dangerous to follow the hon. Gentleman's proposal merely to be popular, merely to appear to provide the answer. It would be much better to reject this proposal and to retain the present situation.
      Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Secretary of State for Education and Science and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) seem to think that there is something undemocratic about appeals boards, but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman earlier this month voted in favour of an appeals board to hear complaints against the police. The Government admitted that that appeals procedure would cost about £300,000, but some of my hon. Friends suggested that it would cost at least £1 million and possibly £2 million. We spent two days in this House discussing the appeals procedure for the police, yet in the course of the last 10 years I have received 20 times as many complaints from my constituents about secondary school placements as about the

      487
      conduct of the police. I wonder whether we have our priorities right.
      The volume of complaint that we receive from parents is not surprising, because they know that a wrong selection can damage the chances of their child for life. The hon. Member for Penistone gave some examples of his experience in his local education authority area. We in the local education area of Bromley also take great care about the placement of children in secondary schools. Last year 4,500 children moved from primary to secondary schools and 4,100 moved to schools where their parents had indicated a first, second or third preference. But 400 children did not go to schools for which their parents had expressed any preference at all. About 125 of those live in my constituency. More than 20 of them wrote to me about it and, after consultation with local councillors, about 10 of these cases were referred to the local ombudsman.
      I refer to only one specific case. It involved a very bright girl, with an excellent school record, who lived almost in the grounds of a very good school where she wanted to go and where her parents wanted her to go. However, because she was so bright, and because we follow a banding system in my local education authority area, she was sent to a school a long way from her home. She would have to walk through the grounds of the school where her parents wanted her to go, and where she wanted to go, in order to catch the bus to take her to the school, which her parents thought inferior, in order to accommodate a system of unproved social engineering.
      Is it any wonder that the parents complain? In my area, as in many others, there is machinery for dealing with complaints. Of course, it is not described in the handbook which is sent out to parents describing the selection procedure followed by the local education authority because if it were revealed that a complaints procedure was in being it is thought that more parents would use it and more parents would complain, and that should not be encouraged. At the same time, the members of the moderating committee are to a large extent head teachers and the officials who have made the allocations in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr.
      488
      Hunt) said, this is a case of the same people being judge and jury.
      Secondary school places is a matter which has aroused great emotion among parents. They know that it is the key to the whole future of their child. I believe it essential that there should be an open appeals committee in every area so that a parent may know that he has had a proper hearing in a case which is vital to the future of his family.
      Mr. Clemitson: I intervene briefly to return to the particular case which I mentioned earlier and to relate it to the appeals board. I repeat the question, what happens when we have a local authority which runs a comprehensive system and which operates a zoning system? What happens when a particular parent is offered a choice of several different schools and turns them down, not on the basis of denominational choice, or because he or she prefers a single sex schools, or any of the reasons which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) talked about earlier, but refuses to send his child to any of those schools within the comprehensive system because he does not like comprehensive education?
      Is it a proper use of public funds to pay for that child to go to a school outside the maintained sector—to pay for that child to go to a private school? Is it right that other ratepayers within the authority should be expected to subsidise the sending of that child to a private school? The hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 and talked of how, in that section, choice is apparently tempered by a number of factors.
      One of those factors is the question of public expenditure. Here we have the Opposition, who are certainly opposed to any further increases in public expenditure, indeed wanting to cut public expenditure, apparently concerned with teacher unemployment and concerned that there should be a reallocation of funds within education, presumably so that more shall be spent on teacher salaries and less on other things. I raise this particular case because I wonder what would happen if there were an appeals board along the lines suggested in either of the new clauses and if a parent appealed to that board.

      489
      As far as I can see it would be possible for the appeals board to say "Yes, your child should go to a private school and the ratepayers should pay hundreds of pounds, £1,000 a year, or whatever the fee is, for your child to go to a private school". From my reading of either of these new clauses it would be quite possible for the appeals board to do that. If they did so, we could end up with the comprehensive system, which had been democratically and properly introduced, being undermined by the operation of this appeals system. From my reading of the new clauses that would be possible. At least they should be drawn much more tightly and the range should be much more narrowly defined.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Paul Channon: I want to speak for only a few moments because a great many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I do so because I think that the kernel of this Bill, and what we shall be debating this evening, has been raised by many hon. Members during the course of the proceedings—how far should the wishes of parents be paramount? It will not always be possible for parents to get their way but surely one of the most important educational aims for the House to consider is how we can help parents to get the quality of schools they want for their children.
      I speak with considerable feeling because, as some hon. Members know, in my constituency, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), we know what the parents want. They want the system of education that they have at the present time. They think that it is going well. They have even taken the trouble to hold a special poll of all the parents of children of school age in the town and an overwhelming majority decided that they wished to retain the present system.
      I therefore take with a great pinch of salt what the Secretary of State said. I wrote down his words—that the parental role in education is of great importance, parental wishes were paramount, he yielded to no one in his concern for parental involvement. With the greatest respect, the people of Southend think that he yields to many more people than
      490
      the parents in his assessment of what parents in that area want.
      The strong view taken by Southend parents was confirmed in the local elections, in which education was an important factor. There was a convincing result because of the numbers of people who were determined to vote Conservative, some for the first time, in an attempt to retain the present character of education in the town. They were appalled by the stand of the Liberal Party. Even some of those who stood for office on the Liberal ticket have told me that they wished that they could get the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) to change his mind on this front. They find it extraordinary that a party which stands for freedom of choice, participation and allowing voters a greater say in local affairs should support a measure which ignores the wishes of local parents.
      There is remarkably little complaint from parents in Southend at the moment about choice of schools. I get a number of letters on this subject, usually about this time of year. I see a number of parents and, like the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I do my best for them. Sometimes I succeed, usually I fail, but that is the experience of most hon. Members. This suggestion will be wanted by people in my constituency even more in future than at present because, with the coming of the unknown, they want their rights as parents safeguarded—something which has not proved necessary up till now.
      The hon. Member for Penistone made a powerful speech but I disagree with him on one matter in particular. Many parents have a burning sense of grievance about the schools to which their children have been allocated. Rightly or wrongly, they feel that the local authority is the judge and jury in its own cause and that, at the end of the day, no matter what they say, no matter what letters the hon. Member and I may write to the chairman of the education committee or the education director, the local authority will decide. If the authority decides, as it usually must, to confirm its earlier decision, that burning sense of injustice remains.
      I readily concede that some parents will be unreasonable and will not be satisfied with anything, but that is true

      491
      of life. It is vital that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The House should carefully consider what my hon. Friend has outlined. We should establish a local appeals board for cases of this kind.
      This real sense of injustice will not be removed unless an impartial body, appointed but not controlled by the local authority, is available to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, much more in future than in the past we should be concerned about parental involvement in schools, in their quality and their organisation. The new clause is a modest step forward for which I hope my hon. Friends will vote in large numbers.
      Mr. Freud: The two new clauses seek to establish an appeal board. I am sure that it will please the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to know that I and my party are totally in favour of appeal boards. We think that the idea is absolutely right. We have never been against it. I tabled an amendment in Committee putting forward this sort of suggestion.
      But I am opposed to the wording of the new clause. I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) said that the Opposition were not wedded to a particular form of words, but I do not understand the point of Parliament if one moves an amendment and begins by saying that one is not particularly concerned about the words. Surely that is why we are here.
      The clause has been fashioned into a deliberate political instrument, whereas it is meant to achieve some good in the way of local democratic decisions. The grounds for appeal are so made as to encourage a chaotic rush of appeals for almost any reason, but I must oppose the clause because it is desperately unfair in a legal sense in that the appellant has much more right than does the local education authority. If his appeal fails, the appellant is allowed to take the matter to the Secretary of State, but if the appeal goes against the local education authority, it can do nothing.
      In its present form the clause is unsatisfactory, but it cannot be so difficult to work out a satisfactory and apolitical method whereby appeals can be heard by appointed or democratically elected
      492
      appeal boards. I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the clause but to support appeals procedures which are more properly set out.
      Mr. Reginald Eyre: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is too critical in his view of the wording of the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has had experience of Government. The Government have the advantage and are much better advised as to the correct wording of a proposal. I thought from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he favoured the principle. If he does, I urge him to think again and to support us on that basis.
      Mr. Freud: I am grateful for the reasoned way in which that was put. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) is the first Opposition speaker who has not gone out of his way to insult me and my party. I appreciate that a number of factors were instrumental in causing the clause to be worded less elegantly than it might have been. I accept that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) spends most of his time explaining to his constituents that the good that has been done to them is not by his own instrument because the letters crossed before he was able to do anything. I sit here amazed and appreciative of all that goes on.
      I am totally in favour of an appeals procedure, but as we are asked to vote on a particular wording, I shall have to wait until the wording is more acceptable.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) for his powerful speech. I disagree with virtually everything he said, which is not unusual, but he presented a logical case and did a great service to local government, which does a difficult job often in trying circumstances.
      I have had some experience as an elected member of a local authority. For a time I was deputy chairman of an education authority and deputy chairman of the primary and secondary schools sub-committee of the education committee. Inevitably, the subject we are discussing was one of my responsibilities when I sat as a member of a county council. I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone and all other Labour

      493
      Members agree that there must be some form of selection in any system of education.
      I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Penistone that if parents cannot send their children to the school of their choice, it follows that someone other than the parents—or a child by academic ability—selects a school for them. Why do a Socialist Government have more faith in the education official—or, to be more disrespectful, the education bureaucrat—than they have in an examination or in the right and choice of parents to select a school to which they feel their child is most suited? What extra special powers does an education committee official have to match a child to an appropriate school?
      It has been said that the officials of the section of the education department that makes that difficult choice do so for administrative reasons rather than basing the choice on the needs of the child and his suitability to a particular school.
      Mr. Michael Ward: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has criticised what he called the bureaucrats in local government. Does he accept that in many areas, particularly in inner London, the selection of schools is done by panels of teachers and professionals who have to arbitrate on the problems of schools which are over-subscribed?
      Mr. Winterton: I shall not attempt to speak for inner London. As far as I know, there are some areas in inner London where there is a genuine choice of school because of depopulation. But I do not know whether there is a choice between non-academic and academic schools, or co-educational and single-sex schools. I shall not be directed along that path.
      Mrs. Renée Short: What about the situation in Cheshire?
      Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) is intervening in her customary delightful manner from a sedentary position. I should be happy to talk about the education system in Cheshire, but that would not be in order.
      Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said
      494
      that his so-called bureaucrats were not the people to make such decisions. He is really saying that he distrusts education officers and teachers in any area to decide the type of education suitable for certain children. I find it interesting that the debate has revealed the Opposition's distrust of the teaching profession.
      Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is utterly wrong. I did not say that I distrusted education officials or the education bureaucrat. I merely questioned whether they had a divine right, or any educational knowledge, which enabled them to allocate a child to a school better than the parent whose child is affected by the decision.
      On some occasions I do not have much respect for the behaviour of teachers. I refer to the attitude of teachers in Tameside—and I do not think the matter is sub judice—who acted in an illegal way by withholding information from elected members of the council. That is an appalling attitude and will not endear many teachers to parents.
      8.45 p.m.
      If the parent believes that the local authority's decision is wrong, what can he or she do? To whom can the parent make representations. What sort of postbag will right hon. and hon. Members have from parents who want them to influence the local education authorities? My hon. Friends who have spoken already have told us that their postbags are often full of such letters from parents who are unhappy. Many of those letters come from areas which have gone comprehensive, not areas in which there is still selection or a mixed system, as in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
      I do not receive many letters of that sort, for the simple reason that in Macclesfield we fortunately still have a selective system, although I regret that the Catholic diocesan authorities, without full discussion with parents and local people, decided to go comprehensive. I had a massive postbag from Catholic parents who were livid that their opportunity of choice had been taken away. They have made their views known to the diocesan authorities, which acted very arbitrarily.

      495
      The present stystem of appeal are inadequate. There is no right of redress for a parent who feels that his or her child has been incorrectly allocated to a school.
      Although there may be slight drafting inadequacies in one of the new clauses, the principle is right—that there should be an appeal board or committee. The Secretary of State's adverse remarks about such a body could perhaps be reflected on our magistrates, many of whom volunteered. Until recently they were not trained for the job, but they gave wonderful service and provided a system of law that has respect throughout the world. An appeal body would likewise be respected.
      The Government tell us that the Bill is to abolish selection. That is a load of hogwash, rubbish and codswallop. Children will still be selected and allocated. Instead of there being an independent examination or assessment based on academic ability as the criterion of selection, a faceless bureaucrat will be the new selector. Thus, the Government's claim to abolish selection is bogus. They are merely changing the method of selection. Selection remains in a far more virulent and repugnant form than anything we saw under the 11-plus system.
      There must be a method of appeal. It is right that the Conservative Party, the main Opposition party, should put forward the new clauses to provide parents with justice, so that if they are unhappy about the local education authority's decision, they can have their case fully heard by an independent body.
      It is important that that principle is accepted. In that spirit I commend the clauses, even with their drafting inadequacies.
      Sir G. Sinclair: We have had some powerful speeches directed to the principle behind these two clauses. It has been said that there should be an independent appeals body which will be seen by parents to be independent. It is no criticism of two provisions that seek to gain a response from the Government about the principle of an appeals board that they may be in different forms, and indeed may perhaps be in an indifferent form. Certainly the principle
      496
      exists. If the principle were to be conceded, it is clear that the terms of reference for these boards could be argued out just as closely as are the terms of reference given to the ombudsman or any other board or body set up to arbitrate between a large organisation and an individual.
      The two clauses seek to give the individual certain rights when dealing with a most sensitive family matter. Indeed, this is one of the most sensitive choices open to a family. It involves the attempt to choose the school that we believe will fit the family circumstances and the child.
      We are concerned in these two clauses mainly with the maintained sector—namely, with the sector in which the great majority of children will receive their education. We are most concerned that there shall be the maximum sense of participation and also a degree of fairness in the allocation of school places.
      The need for a body such as we suggest would not have been so urgent were there not real worries, and indeed a malaise, among parents as to the choices being forced upon them in certain areas. There is not always a great deal of choice, but it is right that they should feel that the maximum consideration had been given to family factors. If parents feel that local authorities have not taken full account of family needs, there should be an appeal. New Clause 66 provides an appeal, subject always to the overriding power of the Secretary of State to intervene if he thinks matters are going unreasonably, but that involves an appeal to an independent body that will be seen to be independent. If there is any argument about which is the better pattern, I know from personal preference that it is strongly in favour of that outlined in New Clause 66. However, that is not the important thing. The important thing is principle.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The hon. Gentleman refers to the system under New Clause 66, but will he note that the clause imposes a new duty on local education authorities to give effect to the decisions of the appeal board? Yet he appears to feel that the Secretary of State must intervene if he finds an education authority's action unreasonable. Section 68 of the 1944 Act deals with the actions and proposed actions of local education authorities.

      497
      I presume that he is saying that local education authorities will have a duty to comply with both the recommendations of the appeal board and the Secretary of State's views. Sometimes these may be incompatible. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
      Sir G. Sinclair: I do not think that is a serious gambit by the Minister. There are Ministry inspectors in planning cases who take the greater part of the load. The Minister intervenes as little as possible. In these cases the local authority, if it is a good one and maintains good schools and has a sensitive system for weighing parental preferences, will not find great difficulty in supporting an appeals procedure of this sort.
      It helps to ventilate in an open way a grievance that might otherwise be held for years. In those authorities that are perhaps less sensitive to parental preference, it will have a tonic effect on the local authorities to know that there is an appeals board to which parents can have recourse if they think they are being brushed off by a local authority. I am sure that people do not have this feeling about the majority of local councils because I know that many take great trouble in allocating places as best they can, given limited resources. Those are not the authorities of whom the appeals procedure would be aimed.
      The appeals procedure would be established so that real grievances could be aired and rectified. The procedure would be used in a smaller but important number of cases. I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is as strongly in favour of the principle of an appeals board as I am. I am making an appeal for the principle to be accepted rather than the wording of our clause. I am sure that that will satisfy the hon. Member and I hope that it will enable him to persuade his party to support us.
      Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman said that only a small number of cases would be involved. Would he not agree that the majority of cases arise when parents seek to get their children into a school which is already full? Will he explain how the appeals tribunal will deal with that difficult situation? Does he not think that the very establishment of an appeals tribunal, since it will inevitably be trying to put children into schools
      498
      where there are not sufficient places, will cause undue expectation among parents?
      Sir G. Sinclair: I do not believe that that will be the result and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. If there is a withdrawal of confidence in one or more schools in an area as a result of increasing recourse to the appeals board, that will surely be a sign to the local education authority that there is something wrong—in the opinion of the parents—with some of the schools for which it is responsible. This is a very important litmus test of preferential choice, and many local authorities will be sensitive to this, more so than they are at the moment. I spent much of the weekend talking the matter over with a senior education officer of a local education authority who has this responsibility, and he did not think that it would be a bad thing. In fact he thought that it would reinforce the local authority in reorganising the schools from which parents are withdrawing their confidence.
      9.0 p.m.
      I appeal to all those hon. Members who are concerned for parents to remove from them, as far as possible, the sense of pent-up grievance they have because they feel they are being brushed aside, in spite of all the arguments.
      The Secretary of State said he thought that Section 76 of the 1944 Act was "elegant, and adequate for the purpose". The reason we have put this new clause down is that we believe that in present circumstances in the minds of parents Section 76 is no longer adequate because of two fairly widespread factors. The first is that there has been considerable difficulty, partly because of changes in society, with a number of very bad schools which people want to avoid at all costs. I do not believe that there is one hon. Member in this House who would not want to avoid sending his or her child to a disruptive school if there were a possibility of sending that child to another where good conduct prevails and there is a general determination to get on with learning. There is great unrest and unease among parents about a certain number of bad schools.
      The second factor is that there is a great limitation on choice brought about by the Government's action. The Government will say that they have substituted

      499
      it with another kind of choice. But there is limitation on the choice which is open to parents, particularly since certain local authorities have gone in for very strict zoning procedures. We have argued this case out before—it gives people a sense of educational claustrophobia, which is bad.
      This sort of concern is natural. Parents are worried about the future of their children and about their duty to do their best for their children. This concern underlies the present unsatisfactory situation and for this reason we are determined to persuade the Government to concede, in principle, that there should be an appeal body of this kind.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have the feeling of having been here before. This debate reminds me of many that we had during the inordinately long Committee stage, not least because I find New Clause 15 exceedingly difficult to understand due to the sloppy way in which it is drafted, and that was a familiar situation to those hon. Members who served on the Committee. I am also reminded of the Committee stage by New Clause 66, because clearly the Opposition do not understand their clause.
      I was serious when I made my intervention earlier, because clearly the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) did not understand the import of his new clause. He said that the verdict of the appeal board would be subject only to the judgment of the Secretary of State about whether what it had decided was reasonable. However, that is not the meaning of New Clause 66. No one could override the decision of that appeal board. The powers of the Secretary of State under Section 99 would not bite on the local education authority, for the reason that the authority would have complied with the new duty imposed upon it by the clause when it accepted the decision of the appeal board.
      Nor could the Secretary of State use Section 68, because he could not possibly be satisfied that the local education authority was acting unreasonably when it complied with a duty imposed upon it by law. In other words, the Secretary of State would have no sanction. But neither would the local education authority. The final decision would be
      500
      taken by three people not elected by anyone but appointed by the Secretary of State. That is what the Opposition advance as an extension of democracy and parental freedom.
      What the Opposition have argued in general terms sounds very plausible. In fact, if we study the wording of New Clause 66 we find that they are arguing not for a bureaucratic system but, rather, for a system of diktat by a non-elected appointed board.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: I do not follow this argument, because this is an appeal tribunal. Does the Minister make the same criticism of the Court of Appeal, for example, which consists of three people who are non-elected and appointed?
      Mr. Fowler: No, I do not. But we normally hold in this House—I believe that I have heard this argument from the Opposition from time to time—that there is merit in our system of the local government of education. Yet the import of these clauses is to destroy that system of local government education, as was the import of many of the amendments moved by the Opposition in Committee.
      Furthermore, the Opposition have not addressed themselves in this debate to two crucial weaknesses—what I might describe as the negative aspects of their positive proposals. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) drew attention to one of them. As he rightly said, these clauses, in stressing the rights of parents, disregard the rights of local education authorities. Parents have the right of appeal under New Clause 15, even to the Secretary of State. The local education authority has no right in this matter.
      Even more serious is the other negative weakness of the new clauses. We all know the most common cause of dissatisfaction with a school allocation. Within a selective system it is normally that one's child has not gained a place at a selective school. Within a non-selective system the most common cause of dissatisfaction is that one has not succeeded in obtaining the first choice of school because it is overcrowded.
      What happens when the appeal board decides that a further pupil shall be admitted to an already over-subscribed school? I assume that the Opposition

      501
      believe that the appeal board shall also decide that some other pupil allocated a place at that school shall have that allocation removed to make way for the pupil whom it wishes to be admitted. In short, it is clear yet again that the Opposition have not thought through their proposal.
      I must ask the House to reject these clauses.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      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 256, Noes 221.

      Division No. 208.]

      AYES

      [9.09 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ennals, David

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lee, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ashley, Jack

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Femyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Litterick, Tom

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Flannery, Martin

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bates, Alf

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Luard, Evan

      Bean, R. E.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Belth, A. J.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ford, Ben

      McElhone, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Forrester, John

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Bishop, E. S.

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

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Blenklnsop, Arthur

      Freeson, Reginald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Boardman, H.

      Freud, Clement

      McNamara, Kevin

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Madden, Max

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      George, Bruce

      Magee, Bryan

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mahon, Simon

      Bradley, Tom

      Golding, John

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Gould, Bryan

      Marks, Kenneth

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marquand, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Ian

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Michael

      Cant, R. B.

      Hardy, Peter

      Mendelson, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Harper, Joseph

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carter, Ray

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Millan, Bruce

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Cartwright, John

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Morris, Alfred (Wythonshawe)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Moyle, Roland

      Coleman, Donald

      Horam, John

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Concannon, J. D.

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Conlan, Bernard

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Newens, Stanley

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Noble, Mike

      Corbett, Robin

      Huckfield, Les

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cronin, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ovenden, John

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hunter, Adam

      Padley, Walter

      Cryer, Bob

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Parker, John

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Parry, Robert

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jartner, Greville

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pendry, Tom

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Perry, Ernest

      Deakins, Eric

      John, Brynmor

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Radice, Giles

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dormand, J. D.

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dunn, James A.

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rooker, J. W.

      Edge, Geoff

      Lambie, David

      Roper, John

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wellbeloved, James

      Sandelson, Neville

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Sedge more, Brian

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Selby, Harry

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Whitlock, William

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Tomilnson, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Silverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Small, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Woodall, Alec

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Woof, Robert

      Snape, Peter

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ward, Michael

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      Stoddart, David

      Watkinson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Stott, Roger

      Weetch, Ken

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Strang, Gavin

      Weitzman, David

      Mr. James Tinn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCrindle, Robert

      Alison, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacGregor, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marten, Neil

      Banks, Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mates, Michael

      Bell, Ronald

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Benyon, W.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Biffen, John

      Gorst, John

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Body, Richard

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hall, Sir John

      Monro, Hector

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hannam, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Brotherton, Michael

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Mudd, David

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Alrey

      Budgen, Nick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hicks, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Newton, Tony

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Holland, Philip

      Carlisle Mark

      Hordern, Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Channon, Paul

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hunt, John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Clegg, Walter

      James, David

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Cockcroft, John

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

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Raison, Timothy

      Cordle, John H.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Corrie, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Costain, A. P.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Critchley, Julian

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Crouch, David

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Knox, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Durant, Tony

      Lamont, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lawson, Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Loveridge, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      504

      505

      Shepherd, Colin

      Stokes, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shersby, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Silvester, Fred

      Tapsall, Peter

      Wells, John

      Sims, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Spence, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Younger, Hon George

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Sproat, Iain

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      TFLLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Jim Lester and

      Stanley, John

      Wakeham, John

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wall, Patrick

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 258.
      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 16

      PUBLICATION OF ATTENDANCE STATISTICS AND EXAMINATION RESULTS
      'Local education authorities shall publish each year the school attendance figures for each school maintained by that authority, together with the results achieved in each school in the GCE "O" and "A" level and CSE examinations, and such figures and results shall be available from the local education authority to any member of the public requeting them, and may be included if so desired in the annual publication detailing the maintained secondary schools in the area of the education authority'.—[Dr Boyson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we are to take New Clause 23—(Prospectus); New Clause 24—(Availability of prospectus); New Clause 25—(School annual reports); New Clause 34—(Information about schools).
      Dr. Boyson: I commend these new clauses to the House, or whichever variety or mixture of them the Government may feel in a considerate mood to accept. In a choice society, they have a variety from which to choose.
      All the new clauses are concerned with a phrase that is easily spoken but hard to bring out—open government. All that they do is to ask for the results, or the profile, of any secondary or primary school to be available to the parents in the area so that they know that they
      510
      are not playing a kind of blind man's buff or a kind of bingo with the State education system but know exactly what they are choosing and why. Obviously anybody with confidence in the State educational system would have confidence in the schools saying what was going on inside them. I hope that on the Government Benches there are not Members who so lack confidence in the State system that they fear information about what is going on in schools being available to parents in that area.
      There is a suggestion that this can be done by a kind of annual report issued at the beginning of the autumn term, or the issue of a prospectus that will be available to parents and those who live in the area. Alternatively, it is said, that it should be published, not necessarily in the local Press, but as a whole series of pieces of information available to the general public to show what is happening in individual schools. I think it is as well to say at the outset that there is nothing here that will identify individual pupils in the schools. That is not something for which we are asking, nor would it do any good. What we are asking for is a pattern, a picture of the kaleidoscope events and activities in the schools.
      If all the schools were the same and had the same ends and the same type of discipline, presumably a prospectus from each individual school would be unnecessary, but as the claim has been made that schools vary so much—and we all know from our constituency experience that they vary a great deal—it is important that parents know how and why.
      With the lessening of the control of an understood curriculum, and the lessening

      511
      of the power of HMIs, schools have varied, and they vary tremendously particularly in city areas, and sometimes in county areas. It is because of the variations between schools, and because the curriculum in one school is so different from that in another, as are the values sought and the sports played, that we bring forward this proposal this evening.
      I know that things are easier for those who allocate children to schools if there is a maximum of ignorance among parents about what goes on, because then nobody can complain. Those concerned can sort out the pieces on the chess board and put them around. The more information that goes to parents, the more they will ask that they be allowed to send their children to schools with those values and approaches with which they agree.
      This proposal will be opposed by anybody with a bureaucratic turn of mind. I have great hopes that some hon. Members on the Government Benches will have a non-bureaucratic turn of mind and will believe that open government in this way is not just a phrase or a frothing at the mouth but means a choice of school and an opportunity for parents to have the maximum information in making a decision about their children's schooling.
      This will not mean a choice between a selective and non-selective school. That is an argument that we have had on other issues, but we could take this on the variety of comprehensive schools themselves. I could go to one area of inner London perhaps four and a half miles from here—I could give the compass direction if required—where one comprehensive school will have 30 to 40 places in higher education out of 240 who go in each September, while the next school will be lucky if it has one in a year. The difference of opportunity between those two schools is as much as being selected to a highly selective grammar school rather than a sink secondary modern school. This has gone on not for one year but for 10 to 15 years.
      I come to the question of school attendance. I have always believed that schools are more effective if pupils go to them and preferably if they can get the pupils into one classroom sitting down facing the right way, when there
      512
      is a possibility of the communication of mind.
      I will compare two schools. According to the Evening Standard at the time, in one year one school had an average atendance of 95 per cent. and the other had an attendance of 67 per cent. That attendance of 67 per cent. was praised by the governing body at the time because it was such an improvement over the previous year, when the average attendance had been 49 per cent.
      On 21st June, the Secretary of State mentioned the setting up of an investigation into truancy and indiscipline in schools. I welcome that. But the difference between going to a school with an average attendance of 95 per cent. and one where the attendance is 67 per cent., is all the difference in the world. It is not just a question of O- and A-levels. It is a question of basic academic literary standards for all children. I believe that all children without brain damage can be taught to read at the age of seven. It is interesting that reports of dyslexia have increased as teaching standards have declined in certain areas. Sometimes this is a collective term which covers a multitude of errors.
      The parents should know whether a school—a primary school in this case—is likely to turn out children with a reading age equivalent to their chronological age or whether it will turn out children with a reading age of nothing like that. All this could be included in a general profile. It is difficult for parents to find out.
      In some schools in the Islington area every child has a reading age of 11, equivalent to his chronological age, while in others the record is between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. worse. It is only by rumour that the parents knew of this. No profile could be checked to see what was happening and it was only through the secondary schools coming together and realising that there were difficulties that many parents knew about it. In that area a parent who did not know how to go about getting stray strands of information often did not know the sort of school to which his child was going.
      Many booklets are published by schools in the Inner London Education Authority area—I am not attacking ILEA, which has tried to show what

      513
      the schools achieve—but they are so vague. The one feature which is lacking is facts. The schools said they were offering O- and A-level courses but no reference was made to the fact that in some O-level courses no one passed. The purpose of sitting examinations is at least the hope that someone will get through. The problem is the lack of hard facts.
      I sometimes think the information which is given to parents about schools would fall foul of the Trade Descriptions Act if it were given by a business or other organisation. Often such information is even more dangerous and less informative than that produced by political parties. Manifestos for elections are a kind of prospectus about what has been achieved and what will be achieved. Often they are more accurate than what comes out from schools.
      This matter is not a question of pupil-teacher ratios at all. It is something about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. In many cases staff turnover would tell more. Staff flee very rapidly from schools which are not achieving anything and where there are no signs of esprit de corps among parents and children. The best figure to ask for is the percentage turnover of the members of staff; that would give an idea of the achievements of a school.
      Mr. Keith Speed: Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the best assessments is to count the number of staff cars in the school car park 15 minutes after the end of school?
      Dr. Boyson: That could possibly be a footnote. I would not say that it should be a master paragraph.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Kinnock: There is another rule of thumb, and that is the total overtime bill paid to school teachers. Perhaps that would show how often they remain after school hours.
      Dr. Boyson Dr. Boyson rose—
      Mr. Flannery Mr. Flannery rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not allowed to give way again at this stage. He must answer one hon. Member before giving way to the next.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend should not be so popular.
      Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) knows of the long dispute among teachers whether they should be paid a salary to cover everything—paid to those who work 16 hours a day and to those who work six hours—or whether they should be paid for the hours spent at school, irrespective of achievement. This is an interesting byway which we cannot explore at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a new clause on the subject. We should welcome the opportunity to debate it.
      Mr. Flannery: What would the hon. Member think would be the reaction of members of the public who counted the number of cars parked in the car park here at certain times of day—especially those belonging to Conservative Members, who have so many directorships?
      Dr. Boyson: I think that we had better return to the subject of the prospectus. It is fascinating how the mere mention of the car, whether it be the subject of seat belts or anything else, immediately arouses great interest.
      We are talking about whether parents should be given the information, or whether some people dare not give them the information, on which to base a choice of school. I should like to suggest the sort of material which should be published. No doubt fertile minds in this place can suggest alternatives.
      The first important factor is external examination results. Whether one likes them or not, they are decisive factors in the future life chances of children. Ordinary parents recognise that they are passports to careers. One should know especially the subjects in which CSE, O- level or A-level results are achieved. Schools can claim success rates in subjects of great obscurity with no relevance to the jobs that the children will probably get.
      Some schools in London offer O- and A-levels in the original languages of local immigrants. Many such schools get 20 per cent. of their pass rate through children doing Greek or Hindi. There is no harm in those subjects, but that is not why other parents are sending their children to those schools. It is important

      515
      that information be available about the subjects in which passes are gained.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: What about English?
      Dr. Boyson: The English O-level is very important. For the first time I agree with the hon. Member, and I am grateful to him for mentioning the subject.
      Secondary schools should also have information about which jobs children later gain. We have careers teachers in schools now and it should be easy for them to discover what jobs children take, how many go into higher education and so on. Most of us would require such information before sending our children to school.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there are not careers teachers in every school? That is one of the priorities that the Government have neglected. Until we do have them in every school, the Government should not be putting through farcical legislation like this.
      Dr. Boyson: The number of careers teachers is increasing, but I take the point.
      If such a profile as I have described were required, that would stimulate the careers teachers to get children into jobs and to keep a record of what jobs they took.
      Another important factor is the illiteracy rate. Following the Bullock Report, and assessment of performance unit is a cloud no bigger than a man's hand on the horizon. That will be a check on what is happening in this area, and not before time. Parents should know whether children leave school illiterate. I do not think that any Labour Member would want to send a child, of whatever intelligence, to a school known to have a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. illiteracy rate at the school leaving age.
      Mr. James Johnson: Is the object of the exercise to enable parents to judge that a school is not suitable and not to send their children there, or is it to enable the local authority to spend more money to make it a better school?
      Dr. Boyson: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman at the end what we are after.
      Mr. James Johnson: I am concerned about the attitude of mind. I do not mind a good debate, and I do not mind listening to someone who is attempting to argue a worth while issue, but the whole tenor of the debate is a sarcastic attitude towards children in schools. I flatter myself that I am fair-minded, and I have a completely different attitude from that of the hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Boyson: I have always found that people who doubt other people's motives have no argument. I spent 23 years schoolmastering, and I saw how much parents were concerned to see that their children went to schools in which they could achieve something. Others, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), are well acquainted with other matters of which I have no experience. I know that 95 per cent. of parents want the best for their children. The present system does not give them the opportunity or the information to enable them to get it. I cannot give an X-ray picture of my motives. There are many other reasons for bringing the clause forward apart from my non-political experience. There is the desire that parents should have sufficient information to enable them to choose the school to which they wish their child to go.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Is it not true that without valid information about schools, parents cannot compare one school with another and decide which school they wish their child to attend? The new clause is designed to enable parents to have that valid information available.
      Dr. Boyson: When we have dealt with the availability of the information we can go on to deal with the use to which that information is put.
      In certain parts of the country rugby football is played and in other parts soccer. There are athletics areas and cricket areas. It is important for the parent to know which schools take part in which sporting activities so that their children can take part in the sport in which they are interested and continue to do so after they have left school.

      517
      Many parents would like their children to go to a school which places emphasis on musical education. Parents who are interested in art, pottery or ceramics may wish to send their children to schools which teach those subjects. The decision about which school to send a child may also be made upon the type of discipline that is practised. I do not want drab conformity in all schools, nor do my hon. Friends. In some schools discipline is rigid, and there are parents who like rigid discipline. In some schools in London and other areas the discipline is free and there are parents who prefer free discipline. It is important that before sending a child to school parents should know whether the values of home and school are the same.
      That applies particularly to religious education. If a family feels strongly about religious factors it will want to know how it is dealt with in a particular school. It will want to know whether religion is rushed through with a minimum one lesson a week or the occasional assembly.
      In these days of participation a family would want to know whether there was a schools council where children have a say in running the school or whether it was run by a benevolent despot. As members of a free society parents have a right to know such things. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) would run a school in the same way as I ran mine.
      Mr. Noble: If the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) had a school prospectus would he have said in it that he was a benevolent despot?
      Dr. Boyson: I had a prospectus in which I told parents the type of discipline which their children could expect. The idea of having daily meetings to decide what should be done was foreign to me. In my school, rules were there to be kept. The worst thing is for a parent to send a child to a school and not to discover until later what happens there. I told parents that corporal punishment and terrible things happened in the school and that if they did not like it I could recommend three other schools in the area that did not have it. That is fair enough. If
      518
      one gives the information it is up to the parents to choose what they want to do.
      The new clause would have several effects. It would entitle parents to know what schools were doing. They would know whether they were choosing a school to which they wanted their children to go. A school which has to write a prospectus must know what it is doing. If its aims are put on paper they will be made clearer because the staff will have to decide what they will say. Unanimity of purpose makes a school better than it is when a debate takes place every day. Schools should have to decide what they intend to do. They should have to put on paper what was achieved last year and what they hope to achieve the next year. They would then have something to live up to. It would raise the morale of staff. Once they have committed themselves to achieving a certain standard the odds are that they will achieve a higher standard in the future.
      Another effect will be on local authorities. We must have checks and balances. We work in a quinquennial system with elections in between. Local authorities should have to take action on schools which they find to be heavily over-subscribed or heavily under-subscribed. There are schools in certain areas of London which have been under-subscribed for 10 to 15 years and yet the staff have gone on the same way and no investigation has taken place. The life chances of children in such schools are being ruined.
      Mr. James Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman believes in a laissez-faire society, I understand what he wants. But is it not like two shops, one packed to the door with customers—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That at this day's sitting, the Education Bill and the Motion relating to the Industry (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pendry.]
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 232.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES

  [9.22 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawson, Nigel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Alison, Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lloyd, Ian

  Arnold, Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Baker, Kenneth

  Fox, Marcus

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Banks, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Gardiner, George (Relgate)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Benyon, W.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mates, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mawby, Ray

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Gray, Hamish

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mills, Peter

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hall, Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monro, Hector

  Brofherton, Michael

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hannam, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Buck, Antony

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Morgan, Geraint

  Budgen, Nick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neubert, Michael

  Channon, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Newton, Tony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Hurd, Douglas

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cockcroft, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cordle, John H.

  James, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Corrie, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Critchiey, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Crouch, David

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Eden, Rl Hon Sir John

  Lamont, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Wakeham, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wall, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Stokes, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Shersby, Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Speed, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Younger, Hon George

  Spence, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  van Straubenzee, W. R

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Sproat, Iain

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Allaun, Frank

  Ennais, David

  Lee, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ashley, Jack

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lilterick, Tom

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Luard, Evan

  Bates, Alt

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Bean, R. E.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Boardman, H.

  Freud, Clement

  Madden, Max

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Magee, Bryan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Simon

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Bradley, Tom

  Golding, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gould, Bryan

  Marquand, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Buchanan, Richard

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Grocolt, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Campbell, Ian

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cant, R. B.

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Carmichael, Nell

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Carter, Ray

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cartwright, John

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hooley, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Cohen, Stanley

  Horam, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Coleman, Donald

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Newens, Stanley

  Concannon, J. D.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Noble, Mike

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Huckfield, Les

  Oakes, Gordon

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ovenden, John

  Cronin, John

  Hunter, Adam

  Padley, Walter

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cryer, Bob

  Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parker, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Parry, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  John, Brynmor

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Radice, Giles

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Doig, Peter

  Judd, Frank

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Dunn, James A.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Hooker, J. W.

  Edge, Geoff

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roper, John

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  508

  509

  Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Whitlock, William

  Selby, Harry

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Tomilnson, John

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Short, Mrs Renge (Wolv NE)

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Silkln, Rt Hon John (Depttord)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Silverman, Julius

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Woodall, Alec

  Small, William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Woof, Robert

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Snape, Peter

  Ward, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watkins, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stallard, A. W.

  Watkinson, John

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Stoddart, David

  Weetch, Ken

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Stott, Roger

  Weitzman, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Wellbeloved, James

  Division No. 210.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Allaun, Frank

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Anderson, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ginsburg, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Ashley, Jack

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gould, Bryan

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Newens, Stanley

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Graham, Ted

  Noble, Mike

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bates, Alf

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Bean, R. E.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orbach, Maurice

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ovenden, John

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Padley, Walter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harper, Joseph

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Parker, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Parry, Robert

  Boardman, H.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hatton, Frank

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Pendry, Tom

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Perry, Ernest

  Bradley, Tom

  Hooley, Frank

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Horam, John

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Radice, Giles

  Buchan, Norman

  Huckfleld, Les

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Cant, R. B.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Carter, Ray

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roper, John

  Cartwright, John

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Rose, Paul B.

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Selby, Harry

  Concannon, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silverman, Julius

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Small, William

  Davidson, Arthur

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lee, John

  Snape, Peter

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stoddart, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stott, Roger

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Litterick, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Dempsey, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McElhone, Frank

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Dunn, James A.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Eadie, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Edge, Geoff

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Tomilnson, John

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Torney, Tom

  Ennals, David

  Madden, Max

  Tuck, Raphael

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Magee, Bryan

  Urwin, T. W.

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mahon, Simon

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ward, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Watkinson, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Weetch, Ken

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Ford, Ben

  Mendelson, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Forrester, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Millan, Bruce

  White, James (Pollok)

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

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  520

  521

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. A. W. Stallard.

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moate, Roger

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Monro, Hector

  Alison, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Arnold, Tom

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gray, Hamish

  Morgan, Geraint

  Baker, Kenneth

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Banks, Robert

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Beith, A. J.

  Grist, Ian

  Mudd, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Hall, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Benyon, W.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neubert, Michael

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Newton, Tony

  Bitten, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John

  Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

  Blaker, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Page, John (Harrow west)

  Body, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

  Hicks, Robert

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brittan, Leon

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Raison, Timothy

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hordern, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Buck, Antony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunt, John

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Burden, F. A.

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Carlisle, Mark

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

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Channon, Paul

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Jopling, Michael

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  St. John-Stevas, Gorman

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scotl, Nicholas

  Cockcroft, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Cope, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Cordle, John H.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Silvester, Fred

  Corrie, John

  Knox, David

  Sims, Roger

  Costain, A. P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Critchley, Julian

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crouch, David

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speed, Keith

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Spence, John

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sproat, Iain

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lloyd, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Luce, Richard

  Stanley, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  McCrindle, Robert

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Durant, Tony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, John

  Stokes, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marten, Neil

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fietcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Trotter, Neville

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Freud, Clement

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fry, Peter

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Gardiner, George (Relgate)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wakeham, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mills, Peter

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Warren, Kenneth

  522

  523

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wells, John

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Younger, Hon George

  Mr. Michael Roberts.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  EDUCATION BILL
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Mr. James Johnson: May I begin again, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Johnson: I was saying to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who believes in a laissez-faire society, that a comparison could be made by likening two schools to two shops, one of which is selling a lot of goods and the other of which is not—
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear the hon. Member. Could he start again?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had reached a stage where one shop was selling and the other was not.
  Mr. Johnson: May I, in parenthesis, say that there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear. As I was saying, there is one shop which is popular and has many customers, as a popular school has many pupils. The other shop has very few customers, as the unpopular school has few pupils. Is the hon. Gentleman to dragoon teachers from one school to the other? Does he intend to manipulate teachers in that fashion?
  10.15 p.m.
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point. It follows from what I was saying about a school in a local authority which has been consistently under-subscribed over a period of five or 10 years, and has only 26 pupils there through choice, and 240 "conscripts". I think that in those circumstances a local authority should do something about the situation because generations of children are being ruined. This is their parents' view, and I would back up the parents on this point. There should not be lifetime tenure for heads of such schools.
  The hon. Member quoted the case of two shops in the High Street. If one shop is not attracting custom, then it will
  526
  close down, or probably before that it will have a new manager—
  Mr. James Johnson: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member's philosophy is that he would sell education like boots and shoes in the market place?
  Dr. Boyson: I have to go slowly on these matters so that I do not have another unintentional misunderstanding. I have not at any stage mentioned payments for going to school. Schools exist for children, and parents have a right to say that they do not want their child to go to school A, because school B goes about things better and has a better curriculum. This is nothing whatever to do with boots in the market place. All I am saying is that there should not be any God-given right for a head to stay on in a school, despite the lack of confidence which has grown up around him. People in other professions would not have such a right. There was at one stage a Private Member's Bill introduced to give a five-year tenure for heads of schools. I believe that we may have to resort to such a measure eventually if we are to have good standards in schools. One should not give a lifetime tenure lasting 35 years to a 30-year-old. If this is brought to a head by a prospectus being issued, all I can say is "Good for the prospectus".
  Mr. James Johnson Mr. James Johnson rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made so many interventions that they amount to more than the average speech.
  Dr. Boyson: I shall try not to carry my generosity towards the hon. Member too far, Mr. Speaker.
  The first effect of a prospectus is on the choice of a school by parents, and the second effect is that the school knows it is going to be looked at, and therefore it cannot have any dark corners into which a light does not shine. The local authorities will have to do something.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, would you explain to the House why you did not allow the hon. Member for Hull, North to make another point, because there was a most interesting discussion going on in the exchange of views. Surely this is what the Report stage is all about.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no Member for Hull, North, but the former Member for Hull, North has not intervened because he is quite happy to leave the interventions to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. Speaker: I note that point. I made an appeal to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and then left an invisible question mark. I thought that we were having a debate rather than a dialogue.
  Dr. Boyson: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will make one other illustration on the question of local authorities being responsive. Unless some pressure is put upon local authorities, as they get bigger and bigger they tend to become less and less responsive to people. Therefore, there must be some weapon of accountability. The illustration I would use is that of the building of tower blocks. These were built for the glory of the borough surveyors and the housing chairmen, whether they wore red or blue hats, and not for the glory of the people who had to live in them. If people had a choice they would not have taken tower blocks. I am not doubting the motives of the people who build them. What I doubt is their accountability to the people who put them there to make decisions of this kind. As I see it, the prospectus would be a form of accountability—
  Mr. Kinnock: In the hon. Gentleman's zeal to shine lights in dark corners, does he include a desire to abolish a practice which is prevalent amongst some headmasters of not entering children of lower ability for examinations so that, at the end of the day, the examination records of their school look substantially better than they should? I am sure that that is a practice with which the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted.
  Dr. Boyson: That is a very interesting intervention with which, I find to my delight, I agree. The results of a school should show the numbers who passed and not the percentage. Any school can have a 100 per cent. pass rate. There is an old story which illustrates classically what the hon. Gentleman said. One year, a school had one pupil who sat his
  528
  O-levels for the first time, and he passed. The headmaster said on prize day "We can make a unique claim. We are probably the only school in the country with a 100 per cent. pass rate." The following year, four pupils sat their O-levels. Two passed and two failed. Everyone waited eagerly to hear what the headmaster would say. On prize day, he announced "This year again we can make another unique claim. We are probably one of the few schools in the country to have doubled its number of O-level passes in one year." That is why we should have an assessment on actual passes compared with the number of pupils in the school. A percentage pass rate means nothing.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has given an interesting account, possibly in a jocular vein, of what a headmaster might tell parents. However, he has not told us who is to write the prospectus. If it is to be written by the headmaster, might not the result be a spurious prospectus? He has just described how much information a parent might get from it. But surely, as an ex-headmaster himself, he knows that parents are quite aware of what is going on in any one school. They do not require a prospectus from the headmaster or from anyone else.
  Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that intervention. A great many important matters are coming out in this debate and, at the end of the day, I cannot imagine how the Government will be able to reject these amendments, because it is clear that they are giving rise to a great deal of concern among Government supporters.
  The point put to me by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) is a very interesting one. He asks whether we are to allow headmasters to put out material which is wrong. I do not think so. This can be met quite simply. When a prospectus is drawn up by a headmaster, it can be checked by the chief education officer in terms of its accuracy with regard to attendance, O- and A-level passes, and so on. What is more, the HMI of the area can be a kind of external auditor to make sure that the prospectus is valid.
  I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South shares my concern about

  529
  education matters. However, the present system is such that probably the only time many parents visit their children's schools is on the occasion of their open evenings. Anyone can do a good open evening, just as anyone can whitewash the coal in readiness for an inspection. But it reveals nothing of what goes on in the school. I think that a parent should be able to walk round his child's school on a normal day in the company of a pupil rather than that of the head. Anyone can be taken round by the head, with the senior master peering round a corner to sec how far the procession has got. However, I think that a parent should be able to stop any boy or girl in the yard and say "Take me round the school." It is simpler, fairer and less onerous than having vast numbers of parents arriving unannounced. But it is much more civilised to have a prospectus which can be checked in the way that I indicated.
  Mr. Ward: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that schools have periods of success and of less success. There are cycles in the lives of schools. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) is a good example of a headmaster who managed to achieve, at Highbury Grove, what we call an "up" phase, but he would be the first to admit that at other times in his career he was less successful than he was at Highbury Grove. How does he feel that a school with very big social problems, such as Robert Montefiore, would be helped, struggling at the beginning of an "up" phase, if it had to produce a prospectus containing the bad information? Would it not automatically make life much more difficult for the staff at that school?
  Dr. Boyson: When I took over at the Robert Montefiore school—it was not my desire to talk about this but hon. Members want to know about it—there was no sixth form and no higher education. That was in 1961. In five years we were providing 2 per cent. of the intake of one university. If that is not an "up" phase I should like to know what is meant by that term. It was achieved by the staff of that school. If the hon. Member thinks that that was a "down" phase, I am not in the same league of optimism as he is.
  530
  In my opinion, full information saying what is being done at a school can do no harm. There is no reason why a school should not say that in the past there were difficulties, and then go on to say what is now being achieved, and that the authority is supporting it in its efforts. The school can call a meeting in order to explain what it is doing. I have always found that to provide full and frank information is better than withholding it. There is nothing worse than having to contend with disillusioned parents. The front page of a prospectus should show the present aims of the school, as compared with the past.
  Mr. Cormack: Is it not astounding that hon. Members who are so keen on the manifesto should be opposed to a school producing a prospectus?
  Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting intervention. I am sure that hon. Members will think deeply about it.
  Mr. Noble: Would the hon. Gentleman include the disabilities which would be suffered by a comprehensive school in a mixed system of grammar schools and comprehensive schools? Would he explain in the prospectus the problems created by creaming-off into the grammar school system?
  Dr. Boyson: If a school had its top 20 per cent. removed, it would be very foolish if it did not communicate this fact to parents, because that would affect the results of the school. We made this perfectly clear at Robert Montefiore, so that the achievements would be judged against the intake.
  I believe in having bright lights in dark corners, and the more information that is provided the better. Parents should be fully aware of the schools that their children are going into. I am convinced that the work of the school in the long run depends on the backing given to it by parents and children, apart from the calibre of the staff—a particularly important point.
  Mr. Tom Litterick: Would the hon. Gentleman judge the calibre of the staff by the number of certificates?
  Dr. Boyson: If a person were doing Oxbridge open, it would be a good thing

  531
  for him to have a degree in the particular subject. If a person were doing first-year English his ability to teach that subject, provided that he was a qualified teacher, would be the only consideration. But where specialised knowledge was needed at the top end of the scale, one would need a certificate. Certificates in themselves and without the ability to teach, however, are purposeless.
  10.30 p.m.
  The worth of a school, given the right staff and a reasonable build-up of pupils, will depend on the backing of the children and parents. People will give backing to a school only if they go into it voluntarily, knowing what the school is about at discipline and in terms of subjects, and knowing what the child is likely to achieve in the school. Then the school will enjoy not only parental backing, which is vital to any school, but the backing of pupils. Pupils resent being sent to schools that their parents do not want them to attend.
  The introduction of a prospectus of this type, freely available to parents who will then know what they are going in for, would be good not only for the school—
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will take note that although my hon. Friend has apparently been addressing the House for about 40 minutes, the greater part of his speech has been occupied in dealing with the extensive interruptions from Labour Members who are now quite clearly being discouraged by the Government Whip on duty. When it comes to any consideration of representations to you about a procedural matter, will you bear in mind that my hon. Fried would have addressed the House in his normal succinct and brisk manner but for those frequent interventions?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have been in the Chair for only about one minute. Mr. Speaker made certain recommendations to me before he left.
  Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has made a valid point. The prospectus we have in mind would
  532
  improve schools and ensure that parents and pupils backed their schools. In an age when we hear much talk about open government, this proposal would be a certain step towards open choice in schools.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) gave us one of his usual performances. He is often amusing, and he was again tonight. He is usually prolix, and he was again tonight. He is always didactic, and he shows his service as a headmaster in his manner. Sometimes he is extreme, and I was glad to see that he was tonight voicing his concern with truancy. In Committee he told us that there should be special schools for truants, special schools for thieves and special schools for arsonists. He seemed undisturbed in Committee by the effect this might have upon the application of the fire regulations. The hon. Gentleman is always conscious of his own rectitude and he always shows that mild trace of authoritarianism which one associates with some head teachers.
  Again this evening we saw that, while much of what he was saying seemed superficially plausible, the whole drift of his argument was that local education authorities and head teachers should have a new duty imposed upon them by law
  Mr. Bowden: The Minister referred to special schools in a rather contemptuous way. Has he seen reports in tonight's newspapers that the Inner London Education Authority plans to consider sending pupils who disrupt teaching to special schools in order to keep them away from other pupils? Is he against that?
  Mr. Fowler: I knew I was making a terrible mistake in giving way. The intervention is utterly irrelevant to the the new clause under discussion. I was referring to the views of the hon. Member for Brent, North, and demonstrating that they are sometimes extreme and authoritarian. Anyway, I do not think that the ILEA proposes to have special schools for arsonists.
  We have every sympathy with the general notion that parents should have available to them information about the schools which their children may attend. We do not consider that

  533
  this objective is best attained by imposing a new statutory duty on local education authorities as if they did not know their own business.
  During the passage of the Bill, we have had repeated arguments from hon. Members opposite that, because the Bill imposes a new duty on local education authorities, the Opposition should try to delay this measure by imposing 100 new duties on authorities. The new clause will not achieve the Opposition's objectives. The information that parents need will vary school by school and area by area. There is no way of formulating in law a list of requirements which must be published in a prospectus or in any of the other documents to which the hon. Member for Brent, North referred.
  We very much hope that education authorities will be forthcoming with parents and will make available documentary material and the fullest and frankest replies to parents' questions. We hope that they will facilitate visits by parents to the schools that their children may attend. However, we do not believe that we can impose massive detailed regulations giving effect to the intentions of the new clause. We should not put a requirements on authorities in respect of the information which they should reveal and the form in which it should be made known. They must be responsible for the educational arrangements they make in their areas.
  Throughout our debates, the Conservative Party has manifested itself as the centralist party and it has been for us to resist amendments and new clauses and thus preserve any freedom for local government in the educational system.
  There are further difficulties.
  Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose—
  Mr. Fowler: It is no good the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) behaving as if he is troubled by springs in an unfortunate part of his anatomy.
  Mr. Cormack: Arrogant patronising twit.
  Mr. Fowler: I see that some hon. Members opposite have dined rather well this evening.
  There are difficulties, and the hon. Member for Brent, North recognised some
  534
  of them. The hon. Member showed some of the tendencies of head teachers when he talked about the success rate of the Robert Montefiore School. When he referred to his achieving 2 per cent. of the intake of a particular university, I assume it was a new university with a low first-year intake.
  Dr. Boyson: It is still 2 per cent.
  Mr. Fowler: I take it that 2 per cent. amounts to about two in absolute figures.
  The hon. Gentleman recognised some of the problems, but there are more serious problems than those to which he alluded. Some schools can boast a proud record of achievement, but not the achievement in which Conservative Members have manifested most interest during our lengthy debates on the Bill. Some schools can say that they have a proud record of success in Oxbridge examinations. Perhaps they would also say, if the prospectus were full and honest, that they happened to be situated in an affluent area, that most of the pupils were from affluent homes, that they had good buildings and equipment, a lengthy tradition and an excellent staff.
  Other schools would be able to manifest a proper pride in their achievements—achievements not in terms of Oxbridge scholarships but in coping with old buildings in depressing surroundings, and keeping teaching staffs that had been difficult to recruit because of the surroundings and the physical disadvantages. They would be able to say that many of the school population suffer from multiple deprivation, many coming from broken homes and bad housing conditions, yet they had managed to do something with them. That is just as proud a record of achievement.
  When the hon. Gentleman says that achievements should be recorded, I do not know how we can devise regulations which would subsume all achievements. It is easy to devise regulations to the effect that a school shall set down its record of passes in GCE O-levels and A-levels, or in Oxbridge examinations, but it is not so easy to frame regulations requiring that a school shall duly record its other achievements, many of which are often of greater social value.
  The hon. Gentleman talked at some length about examination successes. A

  535
  number of authorities publish examination results in one form or another. I do not object to that, but that is very much a matter for the LEAs' judgment. I see no reason for making a further inroad into local autonomy by prescribing the form in which local authorities should publish the examination results of their schools. In any event, it could lead to unhelpful comparisons between schools. Examination achievements present only a partial picture of a school. Pupil needs are not necessarily best met by courses leading to examinations and by those courses alone. The needs of some pupils are better met by courses that do not lead to examinations. Even those pupils whose needs are met by examination courses have a variety of other needs that cannot be so easily recorded. That type of comparison is much more likely to be misleading than helpful to parents.
  In a period of transition in many local authority areas it is hard to know, even in terms of the academic achievement of a school, exactly what examination results mean if the pupils have attended more than one school or if the school has been reorganised while they have been there. The whole of a child's schooling must contribute to ultimate success or failure in examinations, in the same way as do social backgrounds and ambiences. The whole of his schooling must contribute, including primary education and, in certain areas, middle school education, as well as that of upper schools or secondary schools. To attribute any excessive weight to the examination results of a single school in a single year would be singularly unwise.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: The Minister says that to attribute any excessive weight to one factor—namely, examination results—would be wrong. Why should he assume that the parents concerned will contribute a weight that is excessive? Why should they not be entitled to know what the results are and to make their own assessment?
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Fowler: The point I am making is that when the hon. Member for Brent, North was speaking, he drew attention to certain specific pieces of information which he thought should be published by law. What I am arguing is simply that
  536
  to require the publication of those pieces of information, and those pieces of information alone, is necessarily to mislead, because this would present a very partial picture.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not understand the Minister's argument. It seems to me that he is indulging in a grave act of humbuggery. What he is saying is that he hopes that LEAs will provide this information, but he says that it is absolutely impossible to do it without misleading anyone. Why then does he hope that they will provide it?
  Mr. Fowler: Because I hope that LEAs will provide not merely this information but a great deal of further information in a form in which it is useful to parents—not in the form of a prospectus drawn up according to the detailed requirements of regulations published as a result of an ill-considered addition to an Act of Parliament. It ill behoves the hon. and learned Gentleman—granted the part of the country from which he comes—to intervene in an English-Welsh debate.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to understand that there is anything amiss in a Scottish Member taking an interest in the education of British people.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Dr. Keith Hampson: In the light of what the Minister has just said, may I draw his attention to New Clause 34 and ask him why, therefore, he cannot accept that, as it does not require any detailed regulations to be imposed on LEAs? New Clause 34 simply imposes on LEAs the duty of supplying each year for public view information regarding the character of the several schools they maintain, as some of them do not do that. Will the Minister not accept at least that new clause, so that the LEAs do that?
  Mr. Fowler: I know of none that does not supply information regarding the character of the several schools it maintains. LEAs may not supply the detailed information that the hon. Gentleman would doubtless like them to supply, but

  537
  the new clause would not require them to do that, anyway. I see no reason for imposing a further duty on LEAs—the hon. Gentleman has a passion for doing this—since it would in no way change the existing situation.
  I want to comment on attendance statistics. The publication of attendance statistics is a matter that falls very properly within the discretion of local authorities. It is for them to judge whether to publish those statistics. It will be obvious to the whole House that these figures, in particular, can be singularly misleading, even from term to term. If there is a 'flu outbreak or a German measles outbreak, what are we to make of these figures? I note that the hon. Member for Brent, North simply wants the publication of attendance statistics. He does not want any explanation of them
  This is a matter entirely within the discretion of local authorities. It is much better left to their judgment how they make that information available and in what form. I object very strongly to the notion that central Government should always dictate in detail to local government what it should do on matters which fall, if one is to have a local government system at all, properly and entirely within its own discretion.
  In my view, therefore, legislation in no way would or could meet the requirements which the hon. Gentleman has postulated. I must ask the House to reject the new clauses.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I rise to support the group of new clauses so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and to point out to the House, perhaps as a newish member, that I thought somewhere deep in the creases of the fluent flannel of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) there was a bit of understanding of what we on this side of the House were talking about. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would feel able to recommend to his hon. Friends that they should accept these new clauses. That is something to which I am sure other hon. Members will want to turn in due course.
  It seems absolutely right that facts and figures of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend should be made available
  538
  to those parents, and potential parents, who want them if we are genuinely concerned about the quality and content of education in our schools. That is a more important aspect of education than the structure, although structure is important too.
  Secondly, I feel that public accountability in education, as in other things, must be more than a fashionable rallying cry. It should apply just as much to education as to any other sector of society. I believe that the suggestions made by my hon. Friend would contribute substantially to the goal of public accountability in education. It would assist parents and pupils to choose between schools. That freedom of choice can only be beneficial, and can only raise standards, as a consequence of throwing the spotlight upon the realities of education in one school or another. Furthermore, this should have a beneficial effect on the staff because it will be an encouragement to staff to keep up to the mark if they know that they have to publish openly the facts of the schools in which they work.
  These prospecti need not be glossy or expensive productions and they could be made available free to all those who most want and need them.
  In annual school reports, in particular, it is important that headmasters should be frank and open with parents. They should be open, not only about their school's achievements but also about their general educational aims, attitudes and ideologies. We have seen too much ideology creeping into education recently and it is right that parents should have a chance to make up their own minds, in advance, as to the sort of ideology their children might face if they were to go to a given school. I believe that all these moves would help to raise the less good schools towards the standards of the very best. If we are genuinely concerned about the education of our children, then that aspect—the raising of the standards of the less good schools and schools which need improvements—will be the most useful aspect of all.
  I believe that greater transparency of this kind, in assessing different kinds and methods of education in different schools, would provide more facts and figures on which to base comparisons. It would keep

  539
  teachers up to the mark. It would increase parental choice and could raise the standards of schools which need standards raised.
  I recognise that there is always a risk in respect of disclosure of any information, as the Government have learned recently in some of their own doings. But if we are to enable people at least to make responsible decisions about a choice which will affect them, and their children, for a long time to come, then it is only fair to make available to them the widest possible range of information. I believe it is a risk which is well worth taking in the interests of greater parental choice. Certainly, it is better than the alternative.
  The only practical alternative, at present, is to have alarmist and often ill-informed stories in the local newspapers about the state of this or that school. All too often such stories are not based on a full and frank disclosure of the facts and are much more damaging to the reputation of schools than the honest and supervised expression of the facts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North referred. What I want is a quiet sober exposure of the facts of a particular school so that parents can make a rational choice in regard to the future of their children.
  Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I do not intend to delay the debate, but the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) should receive answers to some of the points he raised. He talked of a prospectus as a form of consumer guide. The consumer guides that I have seen were written by an independent person, not the person directly involved. The prospectus that he is talking about would be an advertising feature, written by the headmaster and nothing like the kind of consumer guide that he has described.
  Dr. Boyson: Not just the head.
  Mr. Roderick: If it is not the head, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say who will write it. He did not answer the question put to him by one of my hon. Friends.
  Dr. Boyson: I thought that I did, but I am glad of the opportunity to make it even clearer. The preparation will be
  540
  made by the head and staff of the school, but it will be checked by the chief education officer or his representative to make sure that it is valid and credible, that the results and attendance records are available, and by the HMI of the area. So there would be two external auditors of the prospectus.
  Mr. Roderick: That does not take us much further. I assume that it would be brought up to date, so there would be a new publication each year, as staff changed. Whatever was said about a particular department could change overnight with a change of staff, so the prospectus could be entirely misleading.
  I wonder why there is no provision for information to be given about non-maintained schools.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: They do it already.
  Mr. Roderick: In their previous new clause about probation periods, hon. Members opposite were careful to include both maintained and non-maintained schools. This time, there is to be no compulsion on the latter. Did Tory Members choose schools such as Winchester and Eton for their children from the information supplied in a prospectus? For what reasons did they choose those schools?
  Mr. Speed Mr. Speed rose—
  Mr. Roderick: No, I will not give way. I heard the hon. Member—
  Mr. Speed: The hon. Member asked a question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Roderick.
  Mr. Roderick Mr. Roderick rose—
  Mr. Speed Mr. Speed rose—
  Mr. Roderick: I will not give way to the hon. Member. I heard his previous intervention and I know that it is not worth giving way to him.
  Mr. Flannery: He is just a snoop, a car-counter.
  Mr. Roderick: I would have given a little more credence to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, North if he had advocated a compulsory parent-teacher association at every school. That would be a vehicle for information, rather

  541
  than a spurious prospectus designed as an advertising feature. Then parents could consult the staff directly.
  I would advocate—I wish that the hon. Member had done so—parent-teacher associations, so that parents could visit the schools and obtain information. Then there could be proper discussion of all these matters.
  The hon. Member wanted the publication of the reading ages of children at schools. He also talked about results in CSE and O- and A-levels. He suggested that examinations are what education is about. As he should know, education is about much more than examinations. New Clause 16 refers only to O level, A level and CSE. It does not mention the wider issues brought in by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Even if the prospectus went much wider, the school would be judged only on the statistical data based on examination results and attendances.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick: Some of the best qualities in the school are not measurable. The Opposition seem to think that statistics are all that matter.
  Sir G. Sinclair: Many maintained schools already publish prospectuses. They do not find it difficult, and those prospectuses refer to the qualities of the school as well as the bare bones of statistics.
  Mr. Roderick: That does not alter my argument. The prospectus is still an advertising magazine. It would advertise the school and be written by the staff of the school. It would not be an independent view.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What is the Labour Party manifesto but advertising?
  Mr. Roderick: It is an advertising manifesto so is the Conservative Party manifesto.
  The Opposition pretend that the prospectuses would be meaningful and would enable true comparisons to be made between schools, but they would not. For that reason we should reject the proposal to publish examination results as it could be damaging to the schools.
  Mr. Patrick Mayhew: When the Minister of State was addressing the House I could not help thinking that it was a good thing that he was not in charge of company legislation. Every argument he adduced in support of the Government's position on the new clauses could equally validly have been adduced to justify giving no information, for example, about a company's profits. There were so many admirable qualities which a company could display, he claimed, that to illustrate in its annual report or prospectus the profits it made or did not make would serve only to cause undue weight to be placed upon one distorting feature.
  It is nonsense to say that parents are not capable of making a balanced assessment of the value of examination results, attendance records and any other information contained in a prospectus. It is difficult to discern the principle by which the Government are guided. They bring forward arguments on grounds of concern for local autonomy. The Minister says that it is not for us to dictate to local authorities whether they shall say what proportion of children go to school and what proportion choose to stay away. The Government claim that it is not for them to dictate to local authorities what information they shall give about examination successes and failures.
  My constituency falls within the area of the Kent Education Authority, and Kent has gone comprehensive throughout the county except for Tunbridge Wells. I should like to claim the whole credit for this, but modesty forbids it. Kent believes that it knows best the needs of my constituency. Why does concern for local autonomy motivate the Minister in his argument on the new clauses, when it is swept aside on the question of meeting the declared needs and preferences of the parents in my constituency? That is what leads us to suspect the bona-fides of Ministers on the issue.
  I acknowledge that genuine doubt exists among teachers and others concerned with education about the proposals in the new clauses. In my constituency there is a secondary modern school which has an unfair reputation for being a sink school. The headmaster, whom I greatly respect, and many of the excellent staff, genuinely believe that there should be no choice for parents

  543
  —and I respect the logic of their view—because they often choose on the basis of rumour or snobbery, and the academic standard of the school becomes worse. The worse the reputation of a school, the more strenuous are the efforts of parents of brighter children not to have to send their children to it. And so the process continues. I respect that argument, but I disagree with it. One could never persuade a parent of a child forced to attend that school that he is not being made a tool of educational or social engineering.
  In a free society the right method is to make the information about a school available, and if parents shy away from it, more money should be allocated to the school to enhance its standard and hence reputation. If information about attendance records or examination results is denied, what explanation is there except that relevant information is being concealed?
  So often throughout the passage of the Bill I have thought that the attitude of Ministers has been an example of the old Socialist adage that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. But their attitude now is that the gentleman in the town hall is the only person entitled to know at all.
  Mr. Kinnock: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were going to do what my headmaster always did and forget my name.
  The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) described an idea for turning schools into a type of educational unit trust where prospectuses are produced where, if everything is equal, a certain level of education exists, where a clear choice can be made and the allocation of resources can be decided on a perfect market basis. That would result in schools being run as a consequence of propaganda and some schools would attract the children of the fastest or most influential parents. That is the reality of the hon. Gentleman's proposals
  There has been no acknowledgement that the proposed system could effectively apply only in the first year of the school's life and to the first pupils to enter the school.
  Let us examine the situation of a school conforming to the hon. Gentle-
  544
  man's demands for pristine honesty—and of course we know that they will be honest. A school would have to describe in stark honesty that it was forced to resort to repetitive corporal punishment. It would say, "We were forced to have detention every night. Fourteen of our fifth-form girls were pregnant at the age of 15." [Interruption.] I realise that that will not be the kind of school that will concern the hon. Gentleman, except for salacious reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall not withdraw, because it is a serious matter when a school must publish the truth about itself, about its pupils and teachers, and hold itself out in competition with other schools, while for all but the first-year pupils and the staff the situation is unchangeable. They will not be able to get out of the school that advertises itself as being a bad school in a still photograph taken at one time in its whole life.
  The criterion that the hon. Gentleman advocates could be satisfactorily and fairly applied only in a situation of perfection, of universal middle-class values. A particular school, with particular leadership and particular kinds of parents and teachers, could by its very novelty, and the fact that it was not in competition because of that novelty, get away with the prospectus system. But if the system were universalised the result would be a disaster, an invitation to dishonesty or self-denigration.
  Mr. Freud Mr. Freud rose—
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: I had not finished. I was giving way to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
  Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if 15 girls were pregnant in a school the entire local community would think that all the girls were pregnant, and that it would be better to give a truthful assessment of what had happened? If there is something the matter with a school, there is no way in which it can be kept secret.
  Mr. Kinnock: A direct statement from the headmaster, and full participation—
  Mr. Freud: There would have to be.
  Mr. Kinnock: —of parents and pupils in the running of the school could overcome that kind of problem. But it would be most unfortunate if the school were required by law regularly to advertise what were regarded as eccentric or unacceptable activities or failures, in a society with distorted norms and values anyway. The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in even suggesting it.
  Dr. Hampson: After a study including inner-city areas, researchers at Southampton University reported:
  "The majority of parents have little desire to interfere in the way schools are at present organised or controlled. On the other hand, there is firm evidence to suggest that many parents would welcome greater information and involvement in their child's education than is available to them at the moment."
  That is why many other countries insist on this sort of prospectus for their schools.
  Mr. Kinnock: Many other countries have democratic educational systems, which is not a bad idea. Anybody who wants to formulate an educational policy on the basis of an opinion poll is a fool.
  11.15 p.m.
  Schools are forbidding places for anyone not involved in the profession. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) should know his constituents well enough to know that. Every teacher knows it. It is one of the great inhibitions against getting parents fully involved, which so many schools and teachers would like. They think that education is someone else's business even when it is their own child. The consequence of that is that when they are asked questions such as those the hon. Member for Ripon mentioned in his intervention, obviously many parents will give precisely the kind of answers the hon. Member outlined. These amendments take us no nearer getting rid of that unsatisfactory situation.
  Mr. Lawrence Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: No. I do not want to prohibit or exclude other hon. Members from speaking.
  We already have prospectuses. We have prospectuses of the kind the hon. Member for Brent, North had in his school. I am sure that it was a satisfactory document—like mine. They had one in my school, but they called it the school magazine. It was very misleading. It was
  546
  about as useful, as an education document, as Pravda, but, sadly, my school was not a co-operative school. It listed all the successes.
  Of course, there was acknowledgment in the headmaster's letter and in the odd satirical poem about the shortcomings of the school, but the listings were of the successes, the continuing successes. The impression was given of easy success so that no one was listed who opposed the atavistic faults of the headmaster—an old enemy of mine, and he of me, God rest his soul, for he is dead now, but we were the heartiest of enemies while he was alive. The situation was that the failures did not exist. At the beginning of the school magazine, I recall, those who went to university had that university named alongside their names, and so with colleges of education, or training colleges as they were then called.
  Mr. Freud: And borstals?
  Mr. Kinnock: I will come to that. If they went in join the Forces, that was named alongside, and so it was if they went to work in banks. But if they got apprenticeships, they did not even appear. On the other hand, if they failed their A levels that was dignified by the phrase "at school" alongside their names, giving the impression that they were so valuable the school could not release them.
  Our school obtained about 15 State scholarships a year and most of the Grammar Schools' Rugby XV but it was a continual egotistical exercise by the managing director, or gauleiter, as I called him, to add to the support of his scheme of things.
  That is my fear of a prospectus. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) intervened to say "Those in jail". They never appeared. If it comes to speech day, whom do we get?
  Mr. Cormack: You.
  Mr. Kinnock: Infrequently. Over a 10-year period, we are asked, but in the intervening period we have those who have climbed Everest, shot rapids in Canada, sailed round the world, and becomes heads of BBC Light Entertainment, those who have designed angled flight decks, or done brain transplants

  547
  All of them are immensely talented and useful people. But the most that can be said of them is that they constitute something of a minority in our society. The lessons that they have to pass on to the overwhelming majority of the pupils, listening with clean shirts and shiny shoes, scrubbed ears—if their hair is short enough for one to be able to see their ears—are pompous, condescending and utterly useless for practical purposes. They totally fail to inspire. If we were more honest we could equally well get that tiny minority of the products of the school who did not climb Everest, who actually went to gaol or whose main talent, as they have developed it, is in claiming supplementary benefit. No one would pretend that they should be introduced, but they have much more to teach the children about to leave school of the realities of life than have those gay adventurers who have swanned around the world or inspired their generation.
  We have to think much more in those terms, not in terms of some smoothly turned-out stereotype. It does not have to be a glossy magazine. I am sure that in such a case the emphasis would not be on honesty because no one could afford that kind of honesty, that kind of self-abnegation. It would have to be propaganda by the established order in the school with the connivance, for obvious vested interest reasons, of the chief education officer. That would be an unavoidable situation. Otherwise it would be an exercise in demoralisation.
  The purpose that I discern behind these amendments is not the ostensible one of trying to provide prospectuses for the guidance of pupils. It is a limited number of parents who can be guided by them. The remainder would be locked into a system with which they would be stuck, be it good, bad or indifferent. The purpose of the amendments is to try to re-introduce an element of social selection into the secondary school system. There is the idea that, if we cannot have competition and selection by examination at the pre-school entry stage, at 11-plus or even 13-plus, we substitute for it a competition between different kinds of schools, taking no account of social deprivation, social disadvantage
  548
  or even parental ignorance, over which the school can have no control.
  It is absolutely idle and stupid to suppose, when all the demand has flooded to one school in an area and it has become apparent in that particular market system that there is no demand for the lower standards of another school, and the consequence is an empty school with enormous waste of public resources, talent and morale, that Her Majesty's Inspectors or some other wise and wonderful being will come along and start to set things right.
  To use the analogy used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) about the two shops, there would have to appear on the door of the benighted and deserted school a notice saying "Under new management." The school would have to say "We have got a brand-new, brash headmaster who intends to whip the kids into shape. He will restore capital punishment. He will reinstate Latin for 13year-olds. He will see that everyone's hair is cut, that no one wears duffle coats, that vests are not worn, that all girls wear brassieres." There would be the assertion of the system of values so much applauded by Conservative Members, the whole system of morality and conformity.
  Opposition Members see schools as a human chicken coop where people learn and are disciplined rather than inspired and educated. What hon. Members have to learn is that there has been an enormous rebellion against that system. It is no longer tolerable. We are going through a period in which it will not be tolerated. I want to see a firm reiteration of the highest academic and cultural standards. I want to see the restoration of community standards in the schools.
  But these criteria which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends try to superimpose are the exact antithesis of that. They are the criteria of the rat race. This is an attempt to reintroduce selectivity and competition, and to cover it with the glossy cover of a prospectus, because they have already lost the argument about doing it through examination.
  Mr. Freud: This is becoming a very illogical debate, particularly when one is sitting on this side of the House among

  549
  people who vote against the closure and then vote to go home at 10 o'clock. It is very difficult to understand. As the usual channels have broken down, if either side wants to use me as an intermediary, I would be happy to be that.
  On balance my hon. Friends and I support this clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are in the same place as right hon. Members and hon. Members from both sides of the House. They are very sensibly eating and drinking until someone moves the closure.
  On balance we believe that more information is more helpful than harmful, in spite of the splendid oration, or monologue, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The more truth which goes out, the more it dispels rumour—and all schools are in a community where rumour is rife. It is right that the maximum information should be given to anyone who is interested in it.
  There are two dangers which should be looked at. First, it appears to presuppose that the evidence of examination results is the only indication of a school's performance. That is very wrong because many things a school manages to do are totally divorced from failure in examination results and truancy. The fact must be borne in mind that a great deal of happiness is instilled in children in decent schools—qualities such as confidence which cannot be gauged by examination.
  Secondly, I am concerned that when a selective school and nonselective school are running side by side, the publication of examination results will be used to perpetuate political dogma, rather than to produce any real picture of what the education is like. So much harm has already been done by pointing to isolated figures without giving the length of educational establishment of the schools, and showing examination results in selective schools next to non-selective schools.
  But granted that these two caveats are borne in mind, it is entirely proper and sensible that people should know the truancy record of a school, and its academic achievements. When it comes to a prospectus, obviously it is sensible for people to know as much as they want to know, and no legislation ever can force anyone to read a prospectus. By all
  550
  means let schools have one, and let it be made available to parents. Many parents are passionately interested in what the school does, and what it hopes to do. I think that these new clauses should be supported.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: We have had an extraordinary series of speeches from the Government Benches. Indeed, they have been so extraordinary that I almost believe that they agree with the arguments put forward by us.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) discovered at the end of his speech a deep plot in these new clauses. He suggested that we should in some way be perpetuating a form of choice if information were given about schools.
  Choice is knowledge, and knowledge is meaningless without information. If the hon. Member is as interested, as I am sure he is, that parents should have as much choice as they should, they must have the knowledge on which to base that choice.
  It is perfectly true that if all schools published some sort of prospectus or report, whatever form it took, the good schools would attract more parents than the bad, but is that a bad thing? One of the problems we have—I can speak with sonic knowledge and authority of inner London—relates precisely to those schools which have been bad for three, four, five or even 10 years, with nothing being done about it. This is one of the scandals of certain parts of South London. I shall not name schools, but if any hon. Member wishes to ask me about them afterwards I shall be delighted to name them to him privately.
  If the publication of prospectuses forced the education authorities to do something about some of those schools, this would be a magnificent and most advantageous thing for the parents of this country. The headmasters could be changed, for a start. I could name the headmasters. The schools could he named as educational priority schools, so that they received a special weighting. But they could be given the injection of a new headmaster for a start.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty went on to criticise the parents for not paying enough attention to their schools. How

  551
  can they be interested, if the hon. Member is not prepared to have them told about the schools? How can he on the one hand say that the parents are a lot of dunderheads who pay no attention to the schools, and on the other hand say that we do not think we should tell them about the schools because they will misunderstand the position? What nonsense is this?
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House like this about what I said. I regretted the fact that schools were forbidding to many parents. I emphasised that I wanted them to be more involved than the hon. Member seems to want. But I rejected the idea that by installing these criteria we would automatically get a higher rate of participation, discrimination or understanding by parents. That is the case the hon. Gentleman has to prove.
  Mr. Shelton: I do not think we are talking about criteria but about information. I remind Members on the Government Benches of something which most of them seem to have forgotten entirely. Many schools already publish the sort of prospectus we are discussing. Hon. Members asked why private schools are not included in this. Private schools have to compete for their pupils and, by Heaven, they do. They publish prospectuses. I do not know of a single private school which does not publish some form of prospectus. Why is this? It is because these schools live on the money brought in by the students, and they know very well that the parents will not come forward unless they know about the school. Hon. Members on the Government Benches would deny other parents the information that is their right.
  Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in Brighton, where we have had fairly large-scale reorganisation as a result of schools producing a significant amount of information about this, over 80 per cent. of the parents in the area are able now to get their first choice of school. I think that is remarkable. It is only because information has been supplied.
  Mr. Shelton: My hon. Friend is right, of course. How can parents get their first choice with any accurate knowledge
  552
  unless they know about the schools to which they are sending their children? How are they supposed to find out? They find out, first, by talking to friends, then, perhaps, by talking to the education authorities, and then perhaps by visiting the school. Unfortunately, not that many parents take the trouble to visit the school to which their children are to go. If they received a prospectus, at least they would know something about the school which might then lead them to visit it. It might appear less forbidding to them, and I agree that schools sometimes do appear forbidding.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said that a prospectus would be advertising, because it would be written by interested parties. In those terms, he condemned the proposal roundly. If in those terms I may condemn the manifesto of the Labour Party as advertising and, therefore, as meaningless and pointless, I shall be delighted to do so. But I do not suppose that I shall carry Government supporters with me. If they accept their manifesto as meaningful, might not the prospectus of a school be equally meaningful? Might not it include information about the school which was of value to parents?
  Then we had a most remarkable speech from the Minister. I have a very high regard for the hon. Gentleman. He is a very perspicacious man. I can only assume that he wrote his own speech on this occasion.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a nonsense, and he asked how we could have a prospectus for a school and tell it what to put in it. But many schools have prospectuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has them in Brighton. Some schools in the Inner London Education Authority have them. They have no difficulty. They do not burn the midnight oil trying to decide what to put in them. They put in them what the parents wish to know. That is the purpose of a prospectus. It is to advise parents.
  Then the Minister put forward the argument that it would be a restriction on local authorities to impose this requirement on them. He referred to other new clauses, for example that dealing with the appeals board. What an abrogation

  553
  of local authority power, in comparison to the trivia that the Secretary of State himself is proposing, to remove from local authorities the power to decide what kind of educational organisation to have. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is too much to make the local authority publish a prospectus and then attempt to persuade the House to support Clause 1 which says that a local authority may not decide the kind of organisation most suitable for its area? This is a trivial and unimportant argument.
  The only way that I can sum up this remarkable series of speeches from the Government Benches is to say that, once again, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not trust people, they do not trust parents, and they do not trust headmasters. They think that headmasters would write a lot of mendacious falsehoods in their prospectuses. I do not believe it. They believe that parents, when they received such a prospectus, would be misled and come to false conclusions. I do not believe it.
  I can only suppose that this is opposition for the sake of it. I very much regret it. This is an excellent proposal. It would help many parents. It would help many schools. It would help education. Unhappily, once again education is bedevilled, with one side of the House making a suggestion, and the other side saying "No", because, unfortunately, we have two sides. This must be an eminently sensible proposal, and I should very much like to see these clauses added to the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: Any doubts that any objective observer might have had about the merit of these proposals will have been dispelled after listening to Labour Members tonight. They have put up the most spurious and ridiculous arguments, most of which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), and which finally turned upon an attempt to ridicule the possibility of producing a prospectus which would assist parents.
  I am no great friend of comprehensive education where it steamrollers fine grammar schools out of existence. I have spoken before about the two Burton grammar schools which were destroyed and amalgamated into the Abbot Beyne comprehensive school. That school,
  554
  however, has produced a prospectus for 1975—and I hope for 1976 and 1977—which is almost a model for this type of document, except that it does not contain attendance statistics and examination results. It is, however, a model for any prospectus which tells parents what a school has to offer. It is a complete answer to the arguments we have heard from Labour Members tonight who have sneered at the possibility of producing such a document. I shall certainly make it available in the Library to all who want to read it. I am sorely tempted to read it out from cover to cover because it contains so much which would enlighten hon. Members opposite. Instead I shall refer to one or two parts of it in an attempt to answer what I take to be serious points made by Labour Members.
  The prospectus begins with a paragraph dealing with general points. It says
  "From September the school will begin the transformation to a co-educational comprehensive school. This process will take a number of years and single sex classes will exist in some parts of the school for some time."
  That is to allay the fears of the parents. One of the greatest local complaints was that the single-sex schools, for which parents have had respect over the years, were being replaced. The co-educational comprehensive document continues:
  "The school will offer a basic course in the first three years of a pupil's stay."
  The document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen find something to admire in those of us who have mastered the simple art of reading. But I am not sure that they ought to advertise the fact that they have not done so, and are envious.
  The document goes on:
  "This will involve experience of most subjects of the curriculum, although events have taught us that languages (apart from English) are much better suited to the more able boys and girls."
  It talks of courses which are available in the fourth year and adds
  "changes will be made in tune with the desires and potentialities of the pupils after consultation with parents".
  That is another element in the prospectus which tells parents that they will be included in the process. The headmaster of this school, who I have no reason

  555
  to suspect is sympathetic to the Conservative cause, has produced this sentence in the prospectus:
  "It is hoped that the great majority of the pupils will be entered for some external examinations as this not only provides a measure of their success but also an extra incentive for them in their school work."
  At any rate this document shows that those who are most closely connected with producing a prospectus for a comprehensive school have a much more sensible approach to the matter than some Labour Members.
  11.45 p.m.
  There is a section on accommodation which explains how the three school buildings are being used for the teaching of pupils. Mention is made of the excellent playing fields. It also says:
  "At present, we have no swimming pool".
  It does not mention only the facilities possessed by the school, but also those it is aiming to acquire. Parents reading this prospectus will think of this not as a school which has no swiming pool but as one with a headmaster and teachers who will work to get a swimming pool.
  The prospectus refers to the organisation of the school and says that on entry pupils will be taught in mixed ability classes but will be regrouped for subjects such as mathematics and French so that those of similar ability may be taught together. Another section deals with second-year classes and another with remedial classes. Results of pupils' performances will be kept throughout their school lives. The prospectus covers curricula and explains how initially all children will learn French and that some will take a second modern language—either Spanish or German. The more able may learn Latin. Economics and geography may be studied as an additional subjects in the sixth form.
  Hon. Members opposite believe that a prospectus would be useless for parents and would tell them nothing constructive. Hon. Members have attempted to laugh such prospectuses out of existence. It is important that they know the facts before they vote. It will be no good voting first and then going to see this prospectus in the Library.
  On parental involvement, the prospectus says:
  556
  "Parents have a standing invitation to attend all open school functions. The Headmaster will be pleased to welcome them at other times even if they have no particular problem to discuss."
  That is a wide-open invitation to parental involvement. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said that this should be our main concern. What better invitation to involvement could there be than a prospectus which gives such a clear welcome to parents taking an interest in the school and the activities of the children?
  The prospectus sets out the periods of the school day and includes sections on homework, attendance, physical education and rules. It says:
  "Every pupil will be furnished with a full list of the school rules and the support of parents in helping to enforce the rules is important to the well being of all pupils."
  I give way to my constituent.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Gentleman is obviously very impressed with the prospectus of what seems to be an excellent comprehensive school. Is he planning to send his own child there?
  Mr. Lawrence: I am impressed with the efforts of this headmaster to make up for many of the anticipated and probable failures of the comprehensive system and to improve the educational system so that as little as possible of quality will be lost from what existed in Burton previously.
  If the Government go on for much longer, there will be few schools to which I shall be able to send my child and they will all be comprehensive schools. It will be no good sending my child to a comprehensive school in Burton for by then I shall not be able to afford the fares.
  The most important part comes under the heading of "Rules". The rules that are expected to be observed by the children are set out so that the parents may see them. The prospectus states:
  "A few rules which directly affect parents are set out below. Pupils are not permitted to smoke in school or to bring tobacco, matches or cigarette lighters on to the premises. No jewellery, apart from wrist watches should be worn in school. This includes earrings, but girls with pierced ear lobes may wear … sleepers … Valuables must not be brought to school and money carried should be limited to the amount required for the

  557
  immediate needs of the day. Nothing of value must be left in overcoat and raincoat pockets, or in bags and satchels. All clothing should be clearly marked with the name of the owner."
  It speaks about cycling. It states that no knives should be brought to school. The rule is that there shall be no trading in school. It states:
  "For minor offences pupils may be detained in school for up to 15 minutes after the end of the school day."
  It refers to school meals. I shall forbear from commenting on whether the meals produced at the school are an improvement upon the meals produced within this building—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be convenient if the Chair could hear what was going on.
  Mr. Lawrence: I shall endeavour to speak a little louder, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The prospectus of this comprehensive school refers to the school fund. It states:
  "The school operates a private fund which is audited annually by a firm of chartered accountants. This provides for the wider aspects of school life which are not the direct responsibility of the LEA—for example, club and social activities, hire of films, running of the school's two minibuses, match expenses, theatre and concert visits. The best way to ensure a regular income to meet these charges is to ask each family"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make a precis of some of the rest of the prospectus.
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend is dealing with a matter that is entirely relevant to the subject under discussion. We are listening spellbound with fascination to the catalogue that he is reading with such aplomb.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair was just as interested as everyone else. That is why I made the suggestion.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to entertain themselves in this disgusting way by stopping an important measure, which will help thousands of children and parents, by a deliberate and organised filibuster? Surely this is an important breach of parliamentary rules and par-
  558
  liamentary etiquette which undermines an important element of our free democracy.
  Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us deal with one point of order at a time. The Chair is not aware of anything that has been a filibuster in this speech.
  Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that all those who are deeply interested in the Bill will take note of the tactics that the Opposition employ and the contempt with which they have treated this Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is taken notice of and what is not is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Lawrence.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have no need to make a precis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have come more or less to the end of the prospectus.
  Mr. Cormack: Shame!
  Mr. Lawrence: The whole of this argument has arisen from the fact that the Government Benches are suggesting that a prospectus is impossible, or that it would do nothing useful or constructive and would be of no earthly value to parents. That is why everything that I have said so far was to try to prove to Labour Members from a comprehensive school prospectus, before they vote, that it is perfectly possible, if only they will permit themselves, to have an open mind on the matter.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has resumed his seat or is still addressing the House.
  Mr. Lawrence: I thought that everyone was rising to their feet in approbation and naturally I sat down in a measure of modesty. But I shall now be brief because I appreciate that a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, and I do not suppose that they will wish to prolong these proceedings further than 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.

  559
  I conclude on this note because it is absolutely vital to the whole point of these proposals. There can be no earthly reason why the Government should oppose these recommendations which call for publicity of facts and statistics and of the approach that the headmaster of a school proposes to adopt towards the education of the children, unless they have something to hide. If they are ashamed of what they think the comprehensive system may be able to accomplish, that explains it. But if they are sincere in their constant affirmations about the superiority of the system, what on earth can be the objection to publishing statistics, facts and achievements in a prospectus of this kind?
  I end with a quotation from Bentham which has reference to another matter—the right to silence—but which is very important and bears repetition in connection with the Government's attitude on this matter. Regarding the right to silence, Bentham said,
  "If all criminals of every class had assembled and framed a system after their own wishes, is not this rule"
  —that is, the right of an accused person to remain silent—
  "the very first that they would have established for their security? Innocence never takes advantage of it"
  —innocence never takes advantage of the right to be silent—
  "innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence."
  If the apparently guilty men on the Labour Benches are not really guilty, they can have no sensible objection to publishing prospectuses containing something like the sort of information suggested. Only if they have neither faith nor confidence in the system which they have introduced to steamroller out of existence our first-class schools can they possibly oppose the new clauses.
  Mr. Cormack: We have just had a magnificent display of forensic skill from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am sure that when he read that prospectus there could not be any hon. Member in the Chamber—
  Mr. Freud: With a dry eye.
  Mr. Cormack: As the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that there could
  560
  not be any hon. Member in the Chamber who could listen and not be impressed by that splendid attempt by that comprehensive school headmaster in Burton-upon-Trent to tell parents what he was seeking to do in his school and to show them, and the ratepayers, where their money was going and what was being provided.
  12 midnight
  Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite opposing this extremely sensible and enlightened measure? I thought that the Minister's speech was an example of patronising arrogance such as I have not heard in this Chamber for many a long day. The Minister smarts because he is not yet a right hon. Gentleman. He told us so. He appreciates distinction. He appreciates the badge of rank and the call of office. He is glad that he went to Northampton Grammar School, and went to Lincoln College, Oxford, where his name was read out in school assembly. Was he not glad of that school which gave him a start in life which enabled him to be here tonight? Of course he was.
  Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have cause for gratitude to those who have put forward the schemes of excellence and quality in education. It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite are so often enemies of excellence and quality, and the apostles of mediocrity, that they fear choice.
  Why should we have a society in which one cannot choose a school but it is perfectly right and proper to choose a motor car, whether one wants a Rover, as does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), or a Volvo, or whatever; he can look at the prospectus, read about the motor car and make his choice. I am sure there cannot be a single hon. Gentleman who is not excited at the prospectus that BLMC has put out today.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Can my hon. Friend suggest on what basis so many members of the Cabinet and Back Benchers in the Labour Party selected the private schools to which they would send their children if it were not on the basis of a prospectus and why should not everyone have the chance?
  Dr. M. S. Miller: What has to do with motor cars?
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman, who looks as if he has just come back from safari, has not taken part in our deliberations this evening. [An hon. Member: "From the kitchen."] The hon. Gentleman asks what is the relevance of the motor car. What I am seeking to give the House, and we have time in which we can develop these arguments, is an analogy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will all have been delighted by the prospectus issued by British Leyland in respect of the Rover. If they approve of that, why will they draw the line at a local authority, educating the children of their own constituents, putting forward a prospectus for each school saying what it has done, what it proposes to do, what its achievements are and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton so splendidly reminded us, what some of the gaps and deficiencies are?
  I have one child at a local authority school in London and another one following in September. Yesterday we had a parents' meeting. The headmaster told us what was in the school, what he hoped to do and how he liked to enlist the support of parents. He gave us a list of the school's activities and the school magazine. He was involving us. We were delighted. As parents and ratepayers not only were we delighted but we felt intitled to that sort of information. [HON. MEMBERS: "No Closure?"] My hon. Friends seem to be getting excited but they must remember that the Closure cannot be moved while I am on my feet. If my hon. Friends will listen with rapt attention perhaps we might be able to develop these arguments at some considerable length because it would be quite appalling—
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman threatening the procedures of the House by suggesting that he is deliberately going to stay on his feet in order to prevent the Closure from being moved? Is that not an offence against the procedures of the House?
  Mr. Cormack: Unlike the hon. Member, I have a good deal to say on this subject, which is of great importance. I believe that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) is a statistician. He could have a field-day assisting the autho-
  562
  rities in Cannock to produce prospectuses for the schools in his constituency.
  The Minister says that we are seeking to impose obligations on local authorities and to interfere in their affairs. How can any Minister have the brass nerve to say such a thing when he is proposing a Bill which at a stroke will remove all choice, all freedom, all distinction, from every local authority in the land? If we believe that this measure should be debated extensively and in minute detail, we are the ones who are standing up for local democracy and the freedom of local authorities.
  The Government are the guilty men, who suggest that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. The Minister of State's speech reminded me of a pedantic schoolmaster who used to begin assembly every morning with the words, "Be still and know that I am God." It was with that sort of attitude that the Minister addressed us. He could not conceive that anyone was entitled to an opinion different from his own. He hectored and lectured and told us that we were seeking to interfere, when he is driving a steamroller over the local authorities. He is seeking to impose a uniform system which many of us believe can result only in mediocrity.
  Do enlightened and adventurous people, dedicated to diversity and choice—like the headmaster of that school in Burton to which my hon. Friend referred—receive accolades from the Minister? Are they congratulated? No, their efforts are scorned. The Minister should be intervening at this point to say that he is so impressed by that prospectus that he has been converted and he would like to see every school in the land run along the same lines.
  Why should a school be afraid and ashamed of putting forward its wares? The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) suggested that if schools had to issue prospectuses, those schools with a bad academic or sporting record, those whose pupils were not allowed to develop a proper code of ethics and manners, would suffer. It is a very good thing that they should suffer. Why should some of our most deprived children be forced to spend some of their most formative years in establishments of that nature? Anything which can heighten the tone and quality of life in

  563
  this country should be supported by every hon. Member.
  We are not talking about elitist schools, about the public school system. We are talking about the State school system—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may caterwaul and interrupt me as much as they like: they will not put me off.
  Mr. Litterick: Carry on.
  Mr. Cormack: I shall indeed. Adopting the tactics of a conductor, the hon. Member urges me on. I will willingly oblige.
  We seek to speak up for quality and excellence. It is regrettable that hon. Members, whether or not they have been to the bar, whether they are standing behind the Bar or in front of it, should come here seeking to interrupt a serious debate about serious issues.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Would my hon. Friend care to consider an aspect that has not been raised? The Labour Party is a party of optimum disclosure. On the Industry (Amendment) Bill it went all the way to ensure that information about a company's affairs was disclosed to trade unions. Parents do not have a strong trade union, so the Labour Party is not interested in parents. Would my hon. Friend care to expand on that?
  Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He puts forward an argument that should be developed and explored. The Labour Party boasts of participation, it says that there should be industrial democracy and partnership and it talks about disclosure of information, as my hon. Friend so aptly and graphically reminds us. It is also the party that insisted in the Employment Protection Act upon certain rights and duties being placed upon employers. Why are our children not entitled to the same consideration that the Labour Party gives to the trade union movement?
  Mr. Fairbairn: As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) in Committee on the Industry (Amendment) Bill argued in favour of more information for trade unionists, but tonight he argued that information should not be given to parents because it might mislead the poor things.
  Mr. Cormack: He can have made that remark only because he was fearful of the consequences that enlightenment would bring. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) was himself a schoolmaster. I looked him up in Dod's Parliamentary Companion while he was speaking. He held a fairly senior position at several eminent schools, and he did a great disservice to his profession by his speech.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) was also a schoolmaster. He has a first-class honours degree and is proud of it—he puts it in Dod's Parliamentary Companion. The hon. Gentleman therefore approves of quality and excellence and must be proud of some of the fine schools in Hull. Why should not every parent in his constituency have the right to know what is being done in those schools? Why should not those parents and ratepayers be taken fully into account?
  Mr. James Johnson: There is nothing to prevent any school or headmaster from getting out a prospectus. We were told that the Burton school issued an excellent prospectus. That can be done now. It does not require legislation. Any headmasters with the nous can do it, but I do not want to inflict on them legislation of this nature.
  Mr. Cormack: If a uniform system is being imposed by the Government—that is the regrettable consequence of the Bill if it ever becomes an Act—if diversity, richness and choice are to be taken out of our educational system, it is desperately important that the one remaining non-uniform type of school should be put on its mettle and be obliged to show parents what it offers and seeks to do. I can see nothing to object to in a statutory requirement that schools should produce the sort of document from which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton read so eloquently and movingly.
  Mr. Heffer: Did the hon. Gentleman's school issue a prospectus?
  Mr. Cormack: Yes, indeed.
  Mr. Heffer: May I assume that one of the items mentioned in the prospectus was the production of people who make boring, long-winded speeches?
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Cormack: We never had the perspicacity to invite the hon. Member for Walton to come to a speech day but he has put an idea in my mind and perhaps we can see what a long-winded and boring speech is. If he reflects on the progress of the Industrial Relations Bill, he cannot complain when he gets a bit of his own medicine, particularly since his party is trying to introduce such legislation with the support of less than one-third—29 per cent.—of the electorate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The argument does not appear to relate to the new clauses which we are debating.
  Mr. Cormack: I was about to perorate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was interrupted and led astray by the hon. Member for Walton, which is also unfortunately what the people of the country are suffering from. They are being led astray by a Government who put their own pernicious doctrine above quality and by a Government who would sacrifice excellence on the altar of mediocrity. I shall do all that I can to put that right.
  Dr. Hampson: I apologise to my hon. Friends for intervening at this stage but we have been told that the Government are to attempt to curtail free debate by moving the Closure on this important discussion. It is a tribute to the importance of the new clauses that 10 of my hon. Friends are still trying to speak. It ill becomes Government hon. Members to roll into the House, criticise us and then roll out again.
  I am surprised at the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has been in the Chamber. He knows that it is his hon. Friends who have repeatedly interrupted both their own spokesmen and Conservative hon. Members with interventions and points of order to the point where hon. Members on this side received the sympathy of the Chair.
  I declare an interest in that I spent three years working for a PhD which mainly consisted of looking at school prospectuses. The hundreds of thousands of words which I read and the 140,000 that I wrote taught me much about schools but the prospectus referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr.
  566
  Lawrence) was one of the best. It gives the lie to the Government spokesman who specifically concentrated on one or two of the new clauses and proposed spurious technical reasons why the Government could not accept them. The clauses span a wide range. They suggest specific requirements for headmasters but I urge the Minister to look at New Clause 34 which simply provides for the dissemination of information by schools in a local authority area. How can the Government object to that?
  Tonight and in Committee Labour hon. Members paid lip service to the consideration of parental rights. They too referred to how that is enshrined in Section 76 of the 1944 Act, and yet they have the nerve to come to the House and ask hon. Members to reject every single one of the new clauses. It is important to put on the statute book an obligation for local authorities to ensure that all the information is available. It is not a passion of ours to impose obligations on local education authorities. Who is imposing obligations on local authorities, other than this Government in the Bill? Who is taking away from them so much freedom of initiative? As the Minister of State was prepared to admit in unguarded moments in Committee, the whole balance of the 1944 Act is being changed by the Bill.
  We are not trying to impose obligations on local education authorities for the sake of it. But certain things are important. It is the parents' right to know what is happening to their children. Who more than parents deserve to know what is happening in the schools in their area? Even Labour Members are prepared to admit that schools vary. They are always saying it. They say "We are not trying to impose a uniform system." I hope that they do not want monopoly. We have some primary schools with progressive teaching methods and some which are strict and traditional, with an emphasis on the basic skills and the old-fashioned way of learning. Parents want to know and need to know.
  Even Government spokesmen are now concerned about the falling quality of those leaving our schools. There is concern about mathematics teaching and about backwardness in reading, about which employers are now talking. Parents

  567
  are concerned about that, and so are university vice-chancellors, who are now establishing remedial classes for mathematics, science and foreign languages degrees.
  It is clear from the Under-Secretary's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that she is not keen on seeing an emphasis in schools on established religion or loyalty to the Sovereign. It is proper that she has those views, though I think that they are out of place, but parents should know whether head teachers and teachers feel as she does. They have a fundamental right to know.
  Mr. Flannery: Do I understand that in the prospectus that the hon. Gentleman wants by law he would state the personal views of members of staff? Does he agree that that has a well-known description—snooping? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That outcry from Conservative Members is welcome, because it shows that they agree that it is a kind of snooping. Is that the sort of prospectus the hon. Gentleman is advocating?
  Dr. Hampson: One despairs of certain Labour Members. We have seen time and again in the debate how naive they are or how willing to misunderstand what we are saying. I could show the hon. Gentleman hundreds of prospectuses in which teachers and heads are willing to explain their approach and what values they hold dear. I do not think that the headmaster of William Tyndale School was very embarrassed about the way in which he ran his school or about his values. No doubt he would be proud to publish them.
  Mr. Flannery: Then why does the hon. Gentleman need a law?
  Dr. Hampson: Because, as the hon. Gentleman should know, not every school makes such information available and not every local education authority requires it. Even if schools think they make it available, parents do not.
  That brings me to the total misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) of what we suggest. I read him an extract from serious research by two lecturers at Southampton University, entitled "Parents and Teachers". They looked at priority
  568
  areas in inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman poured scorn on what he called a public opinion poll, but it was a serious analysis of home and school links. Not only did they find this great desire by parents to have more information, but they found that many schools thought that they were giving it. Parents, however, thought they could not get information on what or how their children were taught.
  This is part of what we see as a package new deal for parents in the British educational system. Last time we were on Report stage I had the honour of being at the Dispatch Box to launch this set of new clauses to tell parents where they had a right to choose, to tell them each year about their right to information on those schools and about their right to appeal from determinations by a local education authority.
  We see this clause as a catalyst. There has to be an obligation on a local education authority, and on schools to do this, because parents have inhibitions not to take part in the affairs of schools. Somewhere along the line there has to be the political will to do something about communication, to put into practice the theory so that the onus is on the local authority to make sure that it makes available reports on the schools' progress, and with that, makes the terms, the values and goals of the school available to parents and children, to people in the community generally and to parents of potential pupils.
  We hope that that will be a catalyst for interest in the school, and, once having got parents involved, that through the PTAs there is a means and a motive force for the general improvement of the school, because then no longer are parents under inhibition about being involved in what the school does. The proof of that is that it happens.
  This is one of the few countries where this does not apply. If one goes through State after State in the United States, and in Canada, one finds that it is obligatory on the schools that parents are told these things. On the form they are given they can make comments about the school. If they want to make a change, it is considered. This is practicable. There is no excuse for the Minister of State rejecting the proposal. The Government

  569
  pay lip service time and time again when in this area there should be common ground on all sides that something could be done.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Before he sits down, will my hon. Friend deal with the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), namely that discipline no longer matters, that Latin is a thing of the past and should not be taught, that the great train robbers and people who cheated on national assistance should be invited to speech days and that nothing should be taught in schools?
  Dr. Hampson: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. May I refer back to the charge I was levying of complacency on the part of Ministers? Since there should be common ground between us and there is no technical problem about this, and as the Minister of State has said, "We hope very much that local education authorities will supply such information, that there will be full and frank giving of information to parents, as requested", why do they not do something, about it? When will a start be made? Which other way does the Minister see? As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) rightly said, some information is better than non-information by rumour and innuendo, which will spread anyway. It would be better to have proper and more information.
  The charges against us have come from Labour hon. Members who, on the Industry Bill and other Bills, continually call for the exposing of this, that, and the other, and for the elimination of secrecy of business and other information. They are always calling for open government. Of course there should be open government. Parents want more information.
  We have also to bear in mind the comments of the Taylor Report on governing boards. Parents increasingly feel remote from the large-scale local government set-up we now have. We see exactly the same thing happening in this country as we saw happening in the United States, where there was a revolt against centralised control of teachers and professional educators. There was a desire to decentralise the American
  570
  school system and to give parents a more direct involvement. Wherever we look this sort of development is taking place. Yet in this country, the party that believes in open government is digging in.
  12.30 a.m.
  Since we have a situation in which there will be little extra by way of resources—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has not been with us for this debate. That is the trouble with Labour Members. They do not come into debates, or if they do they are not worth listening to. [Interruption.] I recall the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) saying in a debate in this House that he thought that it was the right of every parent and every child to be taught the basic essentials of reading, writing and arithmetic. I thought he was interesting in what he had to say tonight. I hope that he will accept that we are in good faith in trying to improve the system and to give some meaning to the rights of parents.
  Mr. Heffer: I was not attacking the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, when he was deploying arguments. I was objecting to the fact that he should refer to my hon. Friends who come into the Chamber and leave it again, saying that when they came in they were not worth listening to. That was sheer arrogance.
  Dr. Hampson: Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I have different standards and values. It seems to me that when an hon. Member comes into the Chamber, stretches across a bench and keeps muttering loud and rude remarks with no point, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton should address his remarks to that hon. Member rather than to me.
  The Bullock Report said that we ought to recognise that, by the nature of education, educational methods and the pattern of organisation are in a continuous state of evolution. We know that there are likely to be further cuts in public expenditure following the White Paper and we do not yet know what the butchers of Elizabeth House will be doing in the next round of cuts.
  If there are to be fewer resources and the capital programme is to be halved across the whole of the educational sector,

  571
  by 1980 schools will be different and there will be different specialties. We shall not be able to establish the perfect comprehensive school. They will all have different characteristics. It is of particular importance, in that context, that parents should know what is happening in the schools.
  I want to give an example of what is happening, about which many people are ignorant. The Minister of State and I both approve of a development which is almost alien to our system and is, therefore, something which parents do not understand. In Richmond they have just launched a tertiary college, combining a sixth-form college provision with a further education provision. Only, Richmond is a bit different because there is a technical college provision. The local parents are not particularly aware of what is involved.
  It is absolutely vital that when such developments take place the school has a prospectus to tell parents what particular courses there are, what facilities are available, and the tone and nature of the school. Ironically the people who are most concerned about any possible decrease in standards resulting from this venture are the Labour councillors in Richmond, led by the husband of an hon. Member of this House. The Secretary of State has had to cajole the Labour minority of Richmond into accepting this exciting development.
  In this sort of situation, a prospectus is absolutely fundamental. If the Minister of State rejects this clause he will be keeping parents in the dark. That can do
  nothing but harm to the system. It is trampling on the parental rights which are enshrined in the 1944 Act and compounding the anxiety which already exists.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall not detain the House long, as I know how keen hon Members opposite are to settle this matter.
  I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) accurately stated the Government's position. He was right when he said that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were keen to see the fullest information possible made available to parents. I very much hope that local authorities and schools will make that information available. The issue is whether that should be achieved by legislation. The hon. Member argued that legislation is necessary to put political will behind it. Our position is that this is a totally inapposite subject for legislation. It amounts to taking to sledge hammer to crack a nut.
  Some of the new clauses specify in detail the information to be provided, which means that information will take precedence over any other. Then we have New Clause 34, which is so vacuous that no local authority could fail to meet its provisions as part of its present practice.
  Mr. Walter Harrison Mr. Walter Harrison 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, 242, Noes, 236.

  Division No. 211.]

  AYES

  [12.40 a.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchanan, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Archer, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Campbell, Ian

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Ashley, Jack

  Canavan, Dennis

  Deakins, Eric

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cant, R. B.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dempsey, James

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Cartwright, John

  Doig, Peter

  Bates, Alf

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bean, R. E.

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunn, James A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Coleman, Donald

  Dunnett, Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Eadie, Alex

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Edge, Geoff

  Boardman, H.

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Ennals, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cryer, Bob

  Evans, loan (Abardare)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Flannery, Martin

  Litterick, Tom

  Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sandelson, Neville

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Luard, Evan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ford, Ben

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Selby, Harry

  Forrester, John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  McElhone, Frank

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  George, Bruce

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sllkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Small, William

  Gould, Bryan

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Graham, Ted

  Mahon, Simon

  Snape, Peter

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marquand, David

  Stoddart, David

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Stott, Roger

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Harper, Joseph

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Meacher, Michael

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mendelson, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hatton, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tinn, James

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Tomlinson, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Moyle, Roland

  Torney, Tom

  Huckfield, Les

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Newens, Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Noble, Mike

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oakes, Gordon

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ward, Michael

  Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Watkins, David

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watkinson, John

  Janner, Greville

  Ovenden, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jenkine, Hugh (putney)

  Parry, Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Whitehead, Phillip

  John, Brynmor

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Whitlock, William

  John, Barry (East Flint)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Kerr, Russell

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Kiroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Woodall, Alec

  Lamble, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lamborn, Harry

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Mr. Thomas Cox and

  Lee, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Mr. Frank R. White.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Roper, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Corrie, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brittan, Leon

  Costain, A. P.

  Alison, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Critchley, Julian

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Crouch, David

  Arnold, Tom

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Buck, Antony

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Baker, Kenneth

  Budgen, Nick

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beith, A. J.

  Burden, F. A.

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Bell, Ronald

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Durant, Tony

  Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Paul

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Elliott, Sir William

  Bitten, John

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Blaker, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Body, Richard

  Cockcroft, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cope, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Cordle, John H.

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  574

  575

  Fox, Marcus

  Lawson, Nigel

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Freud, Clement

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fry, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lloyd, Ian

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Luce, Richard

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Goodhart, Philip

  McCrindle, Robert

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacGregor, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Madel, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Gray, Hamish

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Marten, Nell

  Shersby, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Gryils, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall, Sir John

  Maude, Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Speed, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spence, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Hannam,John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Stainton, Keith

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Mills, Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stanley, John

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Stokes John

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Strading Thomas, J.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Taylor R (Croydon NW)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Taylor, Teddy (Catheart)

  Hordern, Peter

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Tebbit Norman

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple-Morris Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Neave, Airey

  Thomas Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hunt, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Trotter Neville

  Hurd, Douglas

  Newton, Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  James, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs Salty

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  van Straubenzee W. R.

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

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Vaughan Dr Gerard

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Wakeham John

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wall, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Ian

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Knox, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Younger, Hon George

  Lamont, Norman

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Lane, David

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey

  Mr. Fred Silvester.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 241.

  Division No. 212.]

  AYES

  [12.52 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Channon, Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Alison, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Tom

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Clegg, Walter

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cockcroft, John

  Baker, Kenneth

  Brittan, Leon

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Banks, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Cope, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Cordle, John H.

  Bell, Ronald

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Buck, Antony

  Corrie, John

  Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)

  Budgen, Nick

  Costain, A. P.

  Benyon, W.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Critchley, Julian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Crouch, David

  Bitten, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  Blaker, Peter

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Rippon, Rt, Hon Geoffrey

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lane, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lawson, Nigel

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lloyd, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Fox, Marcus

  McCusker, H.

  Shepherd, Colin

  Freud, Clement

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Shersby, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Sims, Roger

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Madel, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Spence, John

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Maude, Angus

  Sproat, Iain

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

  Stainton, Keith

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stanley, John

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Hall, Sir John

  Mills, Peter

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stokes, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hempson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hannam,John

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

  Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Moore, John (Croydon C)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hastings, Stephen

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Trotter, Neville

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Holland, Philip

  Nelson, Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Hordern, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Wakeham, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow west)

  Wall, Patrick

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hunt, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Wells, John

  Hurd, Douglas

  Pattle, Geoffrey

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  James, David

  Perclval, Ian

  Wiggin Jerry

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

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Younger, Hon George

  Jopling, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Mr. Jim Lester.

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Archer, Peter

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Crowther Stan (Rotherham)

  Ashley, Jack

  Buchan, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

  Atkinson, Norman

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Campbell, Ian

  Davidson, Arthur

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Bates, Alf

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bean, R. E.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Deakins, Eric

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cartwright, John

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Dempsey, James

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Boardman, H.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dormand, J. D.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  578

  579

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lambie, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rooker, J. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Roper, John

  Edge, Geoff

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Lee, John

  Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ennals, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Litterick, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Lornas, Kenneth

  Selby, Harry

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Flannery, Martin

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Silverman, Julius

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Snape, Peter

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Madden, Max

  Stallard, A. W.

  George, Bruce

  Magee, Bryan

  Stoddart, David

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mahon, Simon

  Stott, Roger

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalleu, J. P. W.

  Strang, Gavin

  Golding, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Gould, Bryan

  Marquand, David

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tinn, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Harrison Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Torney, Tom

  Hart Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hatton, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Walker Harold (Doncaster)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker Terry (Kingswood)

  Hooley, Frank

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ward, Michael

  Horam, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Watkins, David

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Newens, Stanley

  Watkinson, John

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Noble, Mike

  Weetch, Ken

  Huckfield, Les

  Oakes, Gordon

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orbach, Maurice

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  White, James (Pollok)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ovenden, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Janner, Greville

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Radice, Giles

  Woodall, Alec

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mrr Thomas Cox and

  Kerr, Russell

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Mulley: I beg to move.
  That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Chair rejoices together with Opposition Members.
  Mr. Mulley: It is a matter of great satisfaction that there is so much interest
  580
  in the Bill, but I am sorry to say that progress tonight has not been good. We hope later today to make much more rapid progress and to consider how best to get the Bill on the statute book.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Opposition quite understand what has motivated the Secretary of State to move the motion. As far as the Opposition are concerned, we would be quite happy to go on tonight. Thanks to the selections of Mr. Speaker, we have 26 major debates which

  581
  we calculate would take us through quite comfortably to the weekend.
  But this is a Government responsibility. The Government have taken this decision. As I say—just in case the BBC gets it wrong again—we are very content to go on. However, if this is the Government's wish, perhaps the House would be wise
  to accept the decision from the Secretary of State.
  Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 73.

  Division No. 213.]

  AYES

  [1.12 a.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Simon

  Anderson, Donald

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Archer, Peter

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

  Marquand, David

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ashley, Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  George, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Mendelson, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bates, Alt

  Gould, Bryan

  Millan, Bruce

  Bean, R. E.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hardy, Peter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Boardman, H.

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Newens, Stanley

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Noble, Mike

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Gordon

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hatton, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ovenden, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis

  Parry, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carmichael, Neil

  Huckfield, Les

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Radice, Giles

  Coleman, Donald

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Janner, Grevilte

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Cryer, Bob

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Roper, John

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Selby, Harry

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamble, David

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Lamborn, Harry

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dunn, James A.

  Litterick, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loyden, Eddie

  Small, William

  Eadie, Alex

  Luard, Evan

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Edge, Geoff

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Snape, Peter

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Ennals, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Stallard, A. W.

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Stoddart, David

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stott, Roger

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

  Flannery, Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Watkinson, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Tinn, James

  Weetch, Ken

  Williams, Sir Thomas

  Tomlinson, John

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Torney, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tuck, Raphael

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Woodall, Alec

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Whitlock, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. John Ellis and

  Ward, Michael

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  Watkins, David

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Hicks, Robert

  Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Arnold, Tom

  Holland, Philip

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bottomley, Peter

  James, David

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Budgen, Nick

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Shepherd, Colin

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lane, David

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

  Cope, John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Cordle, John H.

  Loveridge, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Costain, A. P.

  Luce, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Critchley, Julian

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Trotter, Neville

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Durant, Tony

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wall, Patrick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Morgan, Geraint

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Forman, Nigel

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Younger, Hon George

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Newton, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Clement Freud and

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. A. J. Beith.

  Grist, Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

  INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Industry (Amendment) Bill, now standing committed to a Committee of the whole House. be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Alan Williams.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The Question is—
  Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Aye.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Wait a moment. The Question is,
  That the Industry (Amendment) Bill, now standing committed to a Committee of the whole House, be committed to a Standing Committee.
  1.21 a.m.
  Mr. Tom King: The Deputy Chief Whip on the Treasury Bench need not think that by a quick cry of "Aye" he will be able to cover up the appalling mistakes in the Gov-
  584
  ernment's business arrangements reflected in the motion.
  The Industry (Amendment) Bill was committed to a Committee of the whole House by a Resolution which the House approved immediately after Second Reading. The Government now come back to the House and ask that, instead, the Bill should be committed to a Standing Committee. That shows the state of confusion of the Government's business.
  The Government have had this motion on the Order Paper on three occasions. On one occasion the motion was due to be debated at 10 o'clock, but the Government thought better of it and withdrew the motion. At this late hour tonight they tried to slip through the motion on the nod. That is symptomatic of the Government's handling of the Bill.
  When the Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State for Industry described it as a minor matter, a straightforward amendment of one subsection of one section of a previous Act, which would cost £1,000 million. He described that, in a charming understatement, as a simple, if sizeable, increase. That shows

  585
  to what extent the Department of Industry has been permeated by the language of inflation.
  Although we understand perhaps why the Government are keen to have the Bill transferred from the Floor of the House, we believe that the expenditure of a sum of money of that magnitude deserves the attention of the whole House. The Bill consists of two clauses, the second of which is the Title. This single sheet of paper represents £1,000 million of public money.
  We applauded the Government's decision to take the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government looked to us for support in that, and we were pleased to give it. What are we supposed to do now that the Government have asked us to approve the exact opposite of the motion which they previously asked us to approve?
  We are concerned about the measure of accountability in public expenditure. It should come under the scrutiny of the whole House. The Government tried to do this before at 10 o'clock at night but they withdrew the motion because they were warned that we were not inclined to pass £1,000 million at that time of night after only a one-and-a-half hour debate. The Government are behaving like the Duke of Plaza Toro—having marched the motion on to the Order Paper they promptly march it off again, showing the same instinct of self-preservation as the Secretary of State for Education and Science showed earlier when he decided that discretion was the better part of valour. That is an improper way in which to treat the House. Those of us who take an interest in such matters feel that £1,000 million of public money deserves the attention of the whole House.
  One of the changes which the Government are making to the Bill is to increase the amounts for which the Government have to come to the House for approval for further sums from £100 million to £250 million. That means less scrutiny for increased spending. We have had no evidence why that massive increased sum is required at this time. It is important that the House as a whole knows what is happening.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: On a point of order, Mr.
  586
  Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Strangers' Gallery to be cleared at this hour?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with me. If hon. Members were in the Chamber as late at night as I often have to be, they would know that this is matter of practice for security reasons and that strangers are only being moved to another section of the Gallery.
  Mr. King: I hope that my speech has not cleared the Gallery.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your attention has been drawn to the strangers in the Gallery. Is it not mandatory for you to put the Question by which strangers are ordered to withdraw?
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your attention was drawn to the fact that there were no strangers in the Gallery. Therefore that Question does not apply.
  Mr. King: We feel that the Bill should be considered by the whole House because under the provisions of the Industry Act 1975, for which the Bill provides extended funds, there are a number of remarkable Orders coming before the House late at night. If hon. Members are concerned about the way in which public money is spent, and if public expenditure cuts sign-posted by the Prime Minister at Question Time are to affect some of their pet schemes, they should pay attention to the way in which the Department of Industry has been spending funds in recent weeks under those provisions.
  For example, two weeks ago approval was given to a payment of £10 million to a company jointly owned by the French Government and the largest Belgian oil company for the construction of an oil refinery at Immingham. There were grave doubts whether that fell within the terms of the accelerated investment scheme. It was a highly profitable venture by two companies well able to afford the funds. I trust that no hon. Member believes that Government funds are in such lavish supply that they can be invested in schemes where the money is available from normal financial sources.

  587
  In winding up the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State described the Bill as
  "a proper job-creating and investment-inducing measure."—[Official Report, 29th April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 648.]
  The Order that we dealt with which will be covered by funds similar to those we are being asked to vote under the Bill represented an investment of £80 million and will produce 80 permanent jobs. If that is the yardstick of a job-creating measure it will be very expensive to get unemployment down from the levels under this Government.
  There are other matters which are very germane. The House has been much exercised with the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. One of the Government's main arguments was that the shipbuilding industry needed reorganisation, rationalisation and restructuring in certain areas. They then said that nationalisation was the only way to do it. But those who read the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading of this Bill will see his tribute to the Wool Textile Scheme, under which for limited funds it was possible by a co-operative effort of the Government, the industry and the trade unions to carry out valuable restructuring and re-equipment. That scheme was started by the Conservative Government, and was supplemented by the present Government.
  What happened under the Wool Textile Scheme gives the total lie to the Government's suggestion that only by nationalisation can there be a combined effort. Nationalisation is by far the most expensive way in which to do it. What is needed in the industries covered by the Bill are funds for equipment and to ease temporary employment difficulties, as under the Wool Textile Scheme, and to encourage more productivity and more mechanisation, as under that scheme. Under that scheme, which is the sort of scheme we can support, a limited sum went solely for those purposes. Nothing went to shareholders or to acquire assets of companies, to take money out of the companies and put it into shareholders' hands. It is a much more effective way than nationalisation to spend money.
  In the Bill there are a number of matters that are central to the Government's industrial strategy. The Govern-
  588
  ment appeared to believe that the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. A motion to that effect was approved by the House. It is a measure of the way in which the Government now treat the House that they put before us one motion, which was carried without dissent, and have now put before us another on how to proceed with this short but substantial financial measure.
  The Government decided that for reasons of which we are unaware, and the only explanation we have had was just now from the Deputy Chief Whip when he moved the motion with the words, "Now, Sir". Is that the sort of explanation we are supposed to accept? "Now, Sir"—what does that mean? Some explanation is due to us of the reason why the Government have decided to change this procedure.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Answer.
  Mr. King: We are not prepared to be treated in this way. We have no explanation, through usual or unusual, formal or informal channels. This proposal should be explained as a matter of common courtesy, I say to the Minister of State, who is normally courteous in this matter. He has been stuck with a motion in the name of the Leader of the House, who is noticeably absent. In the normal case a motion of this kind might be moved formally, but when it reverses a previous Government motion, the House is entitled to a modicum of explanation for their action.
  I hope that the Minister will take an early opportunity to put before us the reasons for the motion. Unless they are extremely convincing, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends not to support it.
  1.37 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: It is right, in debating this extraordinary situation, to point to Government business and to say how remarkable it is that they should bring this motion forward, having on 29th April, with agreement, committed the Bill to a Committee of the whole House. Now, without a word, they expect the House to change it.
  We object most strongly because we will not be treated like shuttlecocks at the whim of the Government. I described

  589
  the Bill, on Second Reading, as the most expensive piece of paper ever produced—£1,000 million in one sheet of paper containing one clause. Perhaps it would have been better to say that it was like a Scotch mist, now here, and now not, because it has come forward on so many occasions in the last few weeks. We have taken a great interest in it because it has appeared several times. Now it is back again. It is back only momentarily, to be taken away upstairs. Perhaps "The Upstairs, Downstairs Bill" would be a better description. It is an indication that the Department of Industry does not know what it is doing and that the only thing it can do is press a button marked "Spend money". That is not helpful at present.
  It seems that the Government's programme is in tatters. Perhaps it was not, on 29th April, but now they find that their programme is jammed up and they want to push this Bill upstairs. Although it is only a short time since then, there can probably be no other explanation.
  I agree that the motion is so important and that the addition to public expenditure is so important in the present economic crisis that the whole House would wish to take part in the debate. This is not a matter for just a small number of Members who take an interest in the subject to disappear upstairs and have a theoretical argument about it. It is an argument in which the whole House would wish to join. It would inevitably flow into a general debate on how public expenditure is dealt with.
  If the Minister of State gets his way, which I doubt, and the Bill goes to a Committee upstairs, it will be examined line by line. There are not many lines, but we shall spend a long time on them. I have not worked out the cost per line, but they must be expensive lines. Those of my hon. Friends who are examining the Government's proposals for nationalising the aircraft and shipbuilding industries are doing so with great care and determination. We shall do the same with this Bill. Unlike the Government, we take seriously the spending of taxpayers' money.
  If the Government had asked for this sum five years ago it would not have been granted without the most massive
  590
  and detailed explanation. The Secretary of State for Industry, who introduced the Bill on 29th April, gave no explanation. It was clearly pointed out to him that there was already more money in the kitty than was necessary. In the end he almost had to admit that the money was being asked for some time in advance. We wonder what it is all about.
  There are many questions to ask which are particularly relevant today when the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has announced a new consultative document on the Price Code. If the Government's proposals for the Price Code are effective and allow industry to retain more of its profits to invest and to create more jobs, do we need this money? Industry will have the funds without needing an injection of taxpayers' money.
  Many would say that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has not gone far enough in relaxing the Price Code. That is a matter for argument. The right way to fund industry is to allow it to do so from its profits. The parrot cry from the Government Benches, usually from below the Gangway, is that we must have more investment. Those who say that do not know what they are talking about. What we want is more profitable investment.
  A very interesting figure was released today, pointing a finger to the malaise in industry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion. We are not discussing economics.
  Mr. Grylls: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try to demonstrate that what I am saying is relevant to profitable investment in industry. If we can get that, do we need the Bill? A document issued today showed that the return on investment in industry fell from 10 per cent. in 1965 to 2 per cent. for the current year. Clearly something has to be done. If the right action is taken by the Government, the Minister of State need not come to the House with this extravagant, spendthrift Bill. If the Government insist on having such expensive tastes— and no Department has more expensive tastes than the Department of Industry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has said that something has to be done. We have to decide whether this Bill goes upstairs or downstairs—that is all.
  Mr. Grylls: I will do my best to stick to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister of State must respond to our requests for a proper explanation why the Bill, which was to be a downstairs Bill, is now to be an upstairs Bill. We think that it should remain a downstairs Bill because of the amount of money involved, and we shall continue to hold that view unless the Government can give us very powerful reasons for their change of mind.
  1.47 a.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: The most extraordinary thing about this is that we have a motion in the name of the Leader of the House, yet he sneaked out a moment before the motion was put to the House. This is a discourtesy which is not surprising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Typical."] No, it is certainly not surprising after some of the extraordinary behaviour we have seen from the Leader of the House in recent weeks. We have learned to expect some very strange things from him. We have had cheating votes put through the House, we have had the rights of petitioners denied by cheating in the pairing arrangements—[Interruption.] I am not going to be as mild as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I am going to say what I think. I remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that only shortly after the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Leader of the House had his hon. Friend introduce a Bill to deny the right of petition against the compulsory purchase of land in his own constituency. Here we have a motion which the Leader of the House should be moving—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to intervene in the speech of an hon. Member who is a colleague on the Chairman's Panel, but if the hon. Gentleman had to listen to a similar speech he would say that it was either a filibuster or out of order. I do not say that he is filibustering, but certainly he is out of order.
  Mr. Goodhew: I was alluding to the absence of the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not what I heard the hon. Member say.
  Mr. Goodhew: I was saying that I was not surprised that he should sneak out of the Chamber tonight instead of staying to move this motion.
  Many hon. Members are aware of the pressure on Standing Committees upstairs. A number of Committees are making very slow progress because the Bills were introduced so late in the Session. I do not know what the Leader of the House is doing. He has mismanaged the business of the House in a way I have not seen equalled in 16 years. Also he disregards entirely the rights of hon. Members, which he is supposed to protect.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister for being placed in the position of having to answer the debate, which is rather one-sided now, simply because we were not given an explanation at the beginning why the Bill is to go upstairs. It would have been much better if we had had a speech from the Front Bench first to tell us why the Bill should be taken upstairs. Then we might have been able to understand and have some sympathy with the Government's actions. For the House to be treated in this cavalier fashion, especially after recent events, is quite disgraceful, and I hope that the House will vote against the motion.
  1.51 a.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) should not be surprised that the Leader of the House is not here. None of us is surprised at it. The fiddler is on the roof, and that is where he ought to be. We know why the Leader of the House wants to get the Bill away from the Floor of the House. The reason is that the Government are deeply concerned at the way in which it would be handled on the Floor of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has drawn attention to some of the major elements in the Government's industrial policy which will be contained within the Bill. This comes from a Government who attempted late last night to suggest that the parents of children should not have enshrined in legislation information about what went on inside the schools.

  593
  It is a Government who on the one hand believe in open government and wish to put out more information. My hon. Friends who were on the Industry Committee of last year will remember the hours we spent on the question of disclosure of information. But when it comes to disclosing information to the House to help the taxpayer, the Government want to shovel it away, hide it, and do it by sleight of hand in the early hours of the morning if they possibly can. This is the way in which the Government are treating the taxpayers on this issue.
  My hon. Friend made it clear that the scrutiny of the size of tranche now involved in the Bi11—£250 million at a time, amounting to a total of £1,000 million—brings into play the very core of the economic policy of the Government. It is apparent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement tonight that the target of a lower inflation rate is slipping into 1977–78, and that the Government are way off target in their attempts to bring down inflation. We as of right must assure taxpayers and our constituents that any Government expenditure will be crucially examined.
  We also have to bear in mind that at least one-fifth of it, according to average statistics, will be borrowed abroad. Week after week decisions have to be taken affecting not only the credibility of sterling but also jobs and the way in which the economy is to be run.
  It is for these reasons that a full and proper disclosure of this Bill and the reasons for it, and the explanations the Government should give, should be provided to all Members of this House on the Floor of the House. That was the original decision of the Government, and now they want to get out of it and shovel it away upstairs.
  We demand full rights in this issue and that the Government should stick to their original course and stop fiddling away as they have done on so many other measures. My hon. Friends and myself would certainly wish to press this hard in the Lobby tonight to make absolutely certain that we are seen to stand for open government and disclosure of the way in which taxpayers' money is being spent by this spendthrift Government.
  1.55 a.m.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I make the amount of money involved £50 million more than my hon. Friends have said. It is made up of four increased tranches of £150 million, a total of £600 million, and an increase from £150 million to £600 million, which is £450 million. Therefore, the total amount, consideration of which it is proposed should be shifted from the Floor of the House to a Committee upstairs, is no less than £1,050 million. That is £50 million more than the sum of £1,000 million which, in a moment of madness, Sir Douglas Wass, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, told the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee was not material to the rate of inflation.
  Why does this matter need to be examined on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs? That is the matter to which I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you wish us to direct our attention.
  The Floor of the House is a forum to which all hon. Members have access. A Standing Committee of the House is one to which only very few hon. Members have access. Moreover, it is a necessary arithmetical fact that, of the minority parties, it is likely that only one would be represented in a Standing Committee, whereas all the minority parties can participate in debates on the Floor of the House. One effect of the Government's motion, therefore, is to deprive all but one of the minority parties of the right to participate in the debate. That in itself is a very serious step to take, especially when there is this enormous sum of money involved.
  I do not believe that anyone holds the view today that, if £1,050 million is spent in this way, it can nevertheless be spent in other ways as well and that the well from which money is drawn is bottomless. It is of concern to all hon. Members to know from the Government where other cuts will be made in order to facilitate the release of this sum of money. Most hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity of finding that out if the Bill is removed from the Floor of the House to a Committee upstairs.
  We are not even given that opportunity tonight. Not only is the Leader of the House an absentee from the debate on

  595
  his own motion; as far as I can see, so is every sponsor of the Bill. The Bill purports to be presented by Mr. Secretary Varley, supported by Mr. Secretary Benn—
  Mr. Gow: Where is he?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Where was he? Then follow the names of Mr. Secretary Millan—
  Mr. Gow: Who is he?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Where is he? Mr. Secretary John Morris: where is he? Mr. Secretary Booth: where is he? Mr. Joel Barnett: where is he?
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: He is in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: where is he? Mr. Gerald Kaufman: where is he? Of those who have affixed their names to the Bill, not one has thought it necessary to come here in order to explain why most hon. Members should be disfranchised from the Committee stage of this Bill. It is typical of the way in which members of the present Government treat the House of Commons.
  The House of Commons wishes to participate in the control and allocation of public expenditure. It can do so effectively only when the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind is taken on the Floor of the House. Presumably the reason why the Government tabled the motion that it should be taken on the Floor of the House was precisely that. It was not that the Government had such a light legislative programme that they could comprehend no other way of occupying the time of the House. That is the least probable and the least tenable explanation of any. It was because the Government realised that this was a massive increase in public expenditure which would entail cuts in public expenditure in other directions. That was why the Government thought it right—and by an accident, of course, they were right—that it should be taken on the Floor of the House.
  We are given no reason why what was good in April is no longer good. It is certainly not the case that there has been a sudden flush of available public funds,
  596
  that, owing to the generosity of foreign bankers, the Treasury is now in funds to such an extent that the trivial sum of £1,050 million can be disbursed without inconveniencing any other Government Department or the left wing of the Labour Party. That would be an improbable explanation.
  Why do the Government want to take the Bill upstairs? It is precisely so that they can avoid legitimate examination and criticism. In that case the House should deny them permission to do so.
  The criteria in the Bill have been altered not by Act of Parliament but by White Paper. That is a somewhat unusual form of legislation which is not subject to amendment on the Floor of the House. The White Paper alters the criteria in the Industry Act, I believe quite sensibly. The paradox is that at the same time that the criteria are tightened, the Government are asking for an extra £1,050 million to be spent.
  Surely there are many more hon. Members than the handful who will be selected by the Committee of Selection who would wish to participate in discussing amendments on the Committee stage to ensure that other necessary forms of public expenditure are not hazarded by the Bill, were it to pass unamended. The control of public expenditure is a duty which the House of Commons has taken lightly at some time in its history. It is noticeably one which all sections of the House, even the left wing of the Labour Party, are taking more seriously because they realise that the shoe might pinch their favourite project. If the Tribune Group does not object to the Bill going upstairs it cannot object later to public expenditure cuts that affect its favourite projects. It will have been a party to cutting some of its favourite shibboleths.
  That does not exhaust the reasons why the Bill should not have its Committee stage upstairs. Least of all does it exhaust the Government's obligation to justify to the House such an apparently unreasonable motion which deprives so many hon. Members and a substantial number of parties of their rights to examine and control public expenditure.
  2.4 a.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: At first sight the motion before us looks like

  597
  the investment of about £40 extra by the Government in every worker in the country. But in practice it means that half the workers in the country will be disfranchised because the Industry Act allows them no benefit.
  The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) criticises and laughs at our complaints against the Bill going upstairs, but he should be careful that the workers in his constituency are not excluded. I think the hon. Member would share my concern that we should debate on the Floor of the House the question where this money is to be spent. Why should the North-East of Scotland continue to receive development assistance under the Industry Act 1972? Perhaps we know the answer to that question following the events of last night.
  It is worrying that we should find ourselves disfranchised from discussing a number of matters. Why is the sum involved £1,050 million? What is so magic about that figure? Where will it come from? The Government's borrowing requirement is about £1,000 million a month. Is this money to come from the borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill but merely whether it should be dealt with by a Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Warren: I am trying to draw attention to the critical nature of these sums of money to all hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This does not involve only those hon. Members on the Standing Committee.
  It is wrong that some hon. Members should be disfranchised from discussing which parts of industry should have claims over other parts. We should discuss, for instance, whether oil development in the East Coast of Scotland should receive aid while oil developments off the South Coast receive no assistance. Such matters can be discussed adequately only on the Floor of the House.
  I hope the Government understand that they should not take away from hon. Members the right to discuss matters relating to this country's industrial affairs, particularly when so much money is involved.
  2.7 a.m.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that at least one of the eight or nine promoters of the Bill will come here tonight to explain some of the matters arising from this motion.
  Is it true that the £1,050 million is one of the reasons why, a few days ago, we were able to give only 8p a week to the 300,000 single-parent families in this country? If so, every hon. Member will want to table amendments in Committee because every hon. Member has single-parent families as constituents and we could give them considerably more than an average of 8p a week if the Government have £1,050 million to spread around without the House being able to examine their motives or where the money is to be spent.
  This may also be another reason for the Government's embarrassment when the carrier bag or shopping basket was opened to reveal how the Government had misled the House, the TUC and the public over the child benefit scheme. Do the paper rodents on the Government side need reminding that this affects about 7 million families—14 million parents and 14 million children—about half the population?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this to go on. We must stick to the motion.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not need guidance. He seems to be chancing his arm.
  Mr. Bottomley: I was trying to explain that none of the Bill's promoters has had the courtesy to explain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to the House why the Government want the Bill taken upstairs. I know that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I spoke about something that I saw happening outside the Chamber, so I merely say that a white-haired Minister looked in and went away again.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Not a Stranger.
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall explain briefly why I feel that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friends have referred

  599
  on several occasions to the £1,050 million, and I am sure that all hon. Members would want the opportunity of explaining what else should be done with that sum. If the economists below the Gangway on the Government Benches need this spelt out to them, that is called opportunity costing. If it means a family allowance of £10 a week for the first child for the 7 million families to whom I have referred, the 28 million people—admittedly half of them without a vote—who are forbidden to share in this bonanza of £1,050 million, Labour Members below the Gangway should change their spots and support the claim that the Committee stage should take place on the Foor of the House.
  All hon. Members will have received plenty of correspondence from constituents who are asking for money to be diverted to worthy causes—for example, ex-Servicemen who left the Armed Forces before 1950 and war widows whose pensions are generally recognised as being inadequate. Bearing in mind the number of Members who supported the relevant Early-Day Motion, many would want the opportunity to speak in Committee on the Floor of the House.
  Did the Government think that they did not have enough time on the Floor of the House? Did they think that the Chamber was so occupied with pressing business that there would not be an opportunity for all the Members about whom I have spoken to speak in Committee on the Floor of the House? It must be pointed out that the business that started yesterday, which, I understand, will continue today, could have gone on continuously. The Education Bill, which started, stopped and is likely to start again, could have gone on from one o'clock this morning until half-past two this afternoon. That would have given us another 13½ hours. If the Government had cared to use that time for consideration of the Industry (Amendment) Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House, we should have welcomed that course. If more notice had been given to more hon. Members, I am sure that they would have been here on the Back Benches of both sides of the Chamber to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Government managed to stop Members such as myself from speaking
  600
  on the Education Bill by moving the Closure and reporting progress. They should not have the opportunity of doing so on the Industry (Amendment) Bill. Any hon. Member who writes for Labour Weekly, or any other journal, arguing for a diversion of public expenditure to one of his pet projects should be able to come to the House while the Bill is being discussed in Committee and argue for higher priority for his project. He should be able to argue against the £1,050 million going into the Government's pocket, to be handed out without reference to the House, while widows, one-parent families and children go without.
  Alternatively, the Government might argue that their prospective programme is so full of essential measures that they will not have time in future. As we do not have the pleasure of the presence of the Leader of the House, one can only speculate. A form of speculation that I do not want to go into is whether the right hon. Gentleman is so frightened of me that when he saw me speaking he raced away. I find that slightly surprising, although much of his conduct during the past month or so has been surprising. When I was elected to this House, the Leader of the House was talking about changes in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, and about the closed shop excluding various people from the opportunity of continuing work if they did not join a union.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing a motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Bottomley: That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that you would not want me to go into it in any great detail. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the fact that the Leader of the House said then that if things were not going right, if people were losing their jobs without reasonable cause, he would amend what he had put through the House. People are now losing their jobs. There is no notification system from the right hon. Gentleman's previous Department, and he does not come back and explain that, in the same way as he has not come back to explain why he put this motion on the Order Paper this morning.

  601
  I hope that all those who can think of better ways of spending over £1,000 million, all those who feel that spending an extra £1,000 million is wrong for Britain in its present economic situation, and all those who will perhaps be called back to the Chamber having seen the House of Commons spend more time paying attention to public spending than the Government appear to be, will make sure that the motion is rejected.
  2.16 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Just four and a quarter hours ago the Government moved a business motion to the effect that the consideration of this motion
  "may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour."
  We can at least be grateful to the Government for that because, though the House may be denied an opportunity of considering the measure concerned in Committee of the whole House, they have thoughtfully provided that we may consider the motion before us "until any hour". We must be thankful for that mercy.
  There is one very significant aspect of the motion—that is, that we are invited to approve a motion of two lines and a Bill, to which the motion relates, of two clauses only, yet the two lines of the motion and the two clauses of the Bill contain authority for the Government, without coming back to the House and without any further parliamentary approval—except by Order later—to spend up to another £1,050 million.
  Even you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may have become so immune to the profligacy of the present Government that you may think that no very great sum of money is at stake. However, the Government are borrowing £35 million a day. Some of my hon. Friends look surprised by that figure. It is £1⅓ million an hour, £22,831 a minute and £381 a second that the Government are borrowing.
  The Government are trying to get away with what they hoped would be a short debate tonight. They were hoping for a short debate, but they will not get a short debate because, thank goodness, the motion that the Government themselves put forward means that we may go on until any hour. I hope that we do, because we may be denied the oppor-
  602
  tunity of debating this matter. Unfortunately we cannot all serve on the Standing Committee to which the Bill is to be referred if the Government get their way.
  There is almost no limit to the blessings that would flow if the Bill were considered on the Floor of the House. It would be possible for Labour Members below the Gangway to propose that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Deputy Speaker is sitting here, and the hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. Gow: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When, quite rightly, you reminded me that I should address my remarks to you, I was saying that there is almost no limit to the blessings that would flow if the Bill were considered by a Committee of the whole House. It would enable Labour Members below the Gangway to advance their case as to why the proposed increase of £1,050 million was much too small. They could then have the opportunity of saying to the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the Lord President, if he could be found, that the figure of £1,050 million is miserly and ought to be increased. If, however, the Bill is considered by a Standing Committee, the Patronage Secretary, through the usual channels—if they are operating—will be unable to pack the Standing Committee with every member of the Tribune Group. It is desirable that every Labour Member should have the opportunity to say why the £1,050 million is not enough.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the Members of the Tribune Group sitting below the Gangway. Has he examined the Money Resolution to make quite sure that it has not been drawn in such tight and depressing terms as to deny the Tribune Group the opportunity of endeavouring to amend the Bill so that it is even more profligate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That might be all right on another occasion, but not this evening.
  Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to rescue the hon. Gentleman,

  603
  because I know that he does not know the answer.
  Mr. Gow: I was saying that if only the Industry (Amendment) Bill were to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably those below the Gangway, would have an opportunity of advancing their case, whereas the representation from the Tribune Group in Standing Committee would be very small. Also, many of my hon. Friends, many of whom will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later, perhaps about midday, may not have the opportunity of doing so this morning but would have the opportunity of doing so if only the Bill were considered by a Committee of the whole House.
  The figure of £1,050 million additional spending power for this Government derives from the Industry Act 1972. I was not a Member of the House at that time. If I had been, I would have opposed what was then the Industry Bill of 1972. I do not like the Industry Act. I believe that it is quite wrong to give the Secretary of State, and particularly the present Secretary of State, power to spend money in this way without coming back to the House. We should not be invited at this hour to agree to a Bill of this immense importance to the fiscal, financial and economic probity of the country being sent to Standing Committee without representation of the Tribune Group, without representation from the minority parties and without representation—
  Mr. Hal Miller: On the subject of minority parties, has my hon. Friend considered the blessing to the Government that it the Bill were taken on the Floor of the House they might be able to do a deal with the Scottish National Party that £250 million, or perhaps £500 million, could be reserved exclusively for industrial development in Scotland?
  Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not only the Scottish nationalists with whom a deal could be done. There are nationalists from the Principality of Wales. There is almost no limit to the mischief that the Patronage Secretary could get up to unless the Bill were debated on the Floor of the House.
  604
  Perhaps the most notable omission from our proceedings is the courtesy which should be extended to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your long record of service to the House. To introduce the motion without so much as an explanation to you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his consideration, but I am quite happy with the situation.
  Mr. Gow: Out of courtesy, Sir, I was referring first to the discourtesy done to you. I wish now to refer to the discourtesy shown to Labour Members, notably those below the Gangway. They will be deprived of the opportunity of speaking in Committee on the Bill—[An HON. MEMBER: "When is your birthday?"] I am asked when my birthday is, but I do not see the relevance of that. There is about another eight months to go.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members should not ask about his birthday. He should be much more interested in the question of what star he was born under.
  Mr. Gow: You have raised a point which will fascinate the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never followed the stars, but if I were to tell the House the date of my birthday I should no doubt be told what star it was. The date is 11th February.
  It is customary for most of us on this side to show immense consideration for the Labour Party. We are genuinely grieved that only a few of its Members will be able to make their views known in Committee.
  Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend's point is perhaps much more relevant than he may have appreciated. It might interest him to know that when the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill, which involves the expenditure of £1,050 million, there was precisely one Member from his own party behind him for virtually the whole of his speech, which lasted nearly 40 minutes. Therefore, if Labour Members do not get a chance in Committee, they will never have seen the Bill at all.
  Mr. Gow: I am grateful for that relevant point, to which some of my hon.

  605
  Friends will no doubt wish to refer shortly—or at length.
  There is another matter of concern to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of of Back Benchers. We do not know how many hon. Members will serve on the Standing Committee. Perhaps the Minister might break his silence to let us in on that secret. If it were a very large Committee, it might be possible to accommodate members of the Scottish National Party or the United Ulster Unionist Party. It might even be possible to accommodate me.
  It is just conceivable that by the end of next month the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will have been completed. If so, those of us who are serving on that Committee might be able to serve on the Industry (Amendment) Bill Standing Committee if the Government get their motion. It is relevant for us to know how many hon. Members are to serve on the Committee. If we were told by the Minister that in view of the immense importance of the Bill it was intended to have a Committee consisting of, say, two-thirds of the House, we might view the matter differently?
  Mr. Warren: No.
  Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend says "No", but perhaps he will develop that later.
  In the absence of any explanation from the Government Front Bench, in the absence of all the Ministers whose names appear on the Bill and in the absence of the Leader of the House—who is also Lord President of the Council, a very high office—it is extremely difficult for us to form anything but the most sinister views of the motives which prompt the Government.
  I have already referred to the discourtesy shown to Labour Members below the Gangway, but another discourtesy is being committed to the people whose money the Government intend to spend. We were sent to this place to scrutinise and keep the closest watch on public expenditure, and we shall not allow our constituents to be insulted by committing this miserable Bill to a small Committee upstairs.
  When you glance to the right. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and look at the Government Front Bench, it must be a breath-
  606
  taking sight. Not one Minister whose name appears on the Bill is on the Front Bench. It must be without precedent for no explanation to be given to the House and the country for the committal of a Bill of this nature to a Standing Committee. To allow my hon. Friends to develop their arguments, I shall resume my seat—unless I have leave to address the House again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks about the leave of the House to speak again. He has the leave of the House to sit down now. Mr. Alan Williams.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Scot, you must be aware that there is an important Scottish dimension to the motion, and it would be unthinkable if no speaker were called to represent Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Alan Williams.
  2.33 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked for an explanation from the Government Front Bench of why the motion is on the Order Paper. I am responding to that request. If the loquacious Scotsman below the Gangway on the Opposition side sees any discourtesy, it comes from his colleagues who clearly would prefer to hear what I have to say rather than listen to what he has to say.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister answer the point I raised about the Scottish dimension? We are to debate the Estimates in the next few weeks, and we have heard no arguments.
  Mr. Williams: I hope that the Committee of Selection will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's interest when it is considering who is to serve on the Committee.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-ton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not attempted to catch your eye because I was hoping for that opportunity after the Minister had spoken. Shall I have that opportunity?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the meantime I am calling the Minister.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said that there had been no consultations through the usual channels, but that is because the Opposition have been pathetically sulking in corners. If they want to shed their tears, let them do so, but let them not expect us to take them seriously when they make irrelevant and senseless points.
  Mr. Tom King: Because the Minister has been lost in the Department of Industry, he may not be aware that the usual channels are working, although pairing arrangements are not operating.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Bridgwater has a narrow view of what constitutes the usual channels.
  The motion is simple and straightforward. The Opposition have had their entertainment and fun and indulged in discussion which, for some peculiar reason, they think is relevant to whether the Bill goes to a Standing Committee.
  It has been argued that the minority parties are to be deprived of an opportunity to make their points, and yet Members from those parties are so interested that they are already tucked up in their beds. During the Second Reading debate I recall only one speech from a Member of the Liberal Party. That was the extent of the minority parties' participation. I do not see any enthusiasm among them to rush into the Division Lobby tonight. If they feel that they are being deprived of the right to articulate on behalf of their constituents, they should be in the Chamber tonight.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) must have established some unusual channels between himself and his Front Bench. Hon. Members on his Front Bench have said that they opposed the original motion when it came up at 10 o'clock at night, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West asks why we cannot spend all night discussing the motion and, if necessary, go on until tomorrow. I shall listen to the Opposition when they are sure of their position.
  There appears to be an orchestrated attempt by the Opposition to suggest that there is something unusual in taking to Committee a measure of the type we are
  608
  discussing. That, however, is natural common sense in view of the way in which the Opposition are irresponsibly blocking progress on the Floor of the House. The original Industry Act, the Finance Bill and the Prices Bill went to Committee. I am happy to listen to the Opposition provided they realise that no one will take them seriously.
  On Second Reading the Opposition said that they wanted full discussion. I am sorry that they have such little confidence in their own Front Bench as to feel that it would not be possible to have full discussion in Committee. Some Opposition Members have said that if the Bill went to Committee they would ensure a full discussion. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that there will be a full examination in Committee and also claim that there will not be full discussion.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford) rose—
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman made no attempt—
  Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has not taken part in the debate so far.
  Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to behave in a way which is an abuse of the procedure—
  Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us proceed.
  Mr. Williams: The interesting—
  Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
  Hon. Members: Name him.
  Mr. Williams: I shall be delighted to hear the irrelevances of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the advice of the Deputy Chief Whip and giving way. Will he tell us what motivated his Government originally to move a motion which was precisely the opposite of the one which has been moved tonight? Then we shall be able to understand a little better why they have changed horses in midstream.
  Mr. Williams: The Opposition are indulging in an unscrupulous and irresponsible attempt to block proceedings on the Floor of the House. If that is what they intend to do, so be it. If so, we shall use the procedures which seem relevant to us.
  The Bill is so important, so deep is the feeling on the Opposition Benches, and so wound up was the Opposition Front Bench in its concern about it that when we dealt with it after 10 o'clock on the occasion to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater referred the Opposition did not table an amendment, and, therefore, it looked as if there would be virtually nothing to debate.
  Mr. Tom King: That is not true.
  Mr. Williams: It is true. The hon. Gentleman can consult the record. I shall not go into private conversations, because that would be unfair to him and to me.
  Mr. Tom King: I do not mind the Minister's quoting any private conversations he wishes to quote. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The business was withdrawn. We knew that it might come on. We are not fast asleep. There were seven amendments on the Notice Paper. I do not know where the Minister obtained that information. I do not want to accuse him of wilful misrepresentation, but my memory is clear.
  Mr. Williams: Both of us are relying on our memory. My recollection is that it was said that we should have to deal with manuscript amendments. The Opposition legitimately made the point that they would want amendments to be considered. We were astonished that the amendments were not tabled, and we gave time for that to be done. Now that the
  amendments have been tabled, it is clear that the Opposition, having recovered from their somnolence, want certain technical points to be considered. Therefore, it seemed right to us that we should follow the normal procedures of the House, which are that we should allow a Committee to consider matters of detail and technicality.
  Mr. Tom King: I think that the Minister and I are talking about two different occurrences. There was an occasion when the Government attempted to put the Bill on with no notice. We made representations that if that happened we should insist on the right to submit manuscript amendments. On the further occasion, when the Government withdrew it, the amendments were prepared.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman endorses my point that the Opposition had tabled no amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is no need to withdraw. If anyone should withdraw, it is the Opposition. They withdrew from their responsibilities. That is why no amendments were put down. In a sense, we helped the Opposition cover up their botched-up handling of the matter by allowing the debate to be deferred. They have now discovered that there are points they want to consider, and we are giving them the opportunity in the appropriate place—in Committee.
  Mr. Walter Harrison Mr. Walter Harrison 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 117, Noes 58.

  Division No. 214.]

  AYES

  [2.46 a.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bates, Alf

  Concannon, J. D.

  Flannery, Martin

  Bean, R. E.

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Forrester, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Cryer, Bob

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

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ian

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Graham, Ted

  Cant, R. B.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carmichael, Nell

  Dunn, James A.

  Hardy, Peter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Edge, Geoff

  Harper, Joseph

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Mendelson, John

  Stoddart, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Stott, Roger

  Horam, John

  Newens, Stanley

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Noble, Mike

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Janner, Greville

  Ovenden, John

  Tinn, James

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Parry, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Kerr, Russell

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Ward, Michael

  Kinnock, Neil

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Watkins, David

  Lambie, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Weetch, Ken

  Lamborn, Harry

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Rooker, J. W.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Whitlock, William

  Litterick, Tom

  Selby, Harry

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodall, Alec

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Cope, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Giyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Younger, Hon George

  Gryils, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Clement Freud and

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Mr. Peter Bottomley.

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Question put accordingly:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118 Noes 57.

  Division No. 215.]

  AYES

  [2.57 a.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kerr, Russell

  Bates, Alf

  Dunn, James A,

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bean, R. E.

  Edge, Geoff

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Lambie, David

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Buchanan, Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Litterick, Tom

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell, Ian

  Forrester, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McElhone, Frank

  Carmichael, Neil

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Coleman, Donald

  Hardy, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Harper, Joseph

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cook, Robin P. (Edin C)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

  Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Horam, John

  Noble, Mike

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Hunter, Adam

  Ovenden, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Watkins, David

  Peart, Rt Hon Fred

  Snape, Peter

  Weetch, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Price, C. (Lewishum W)

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, James (Pollok)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Stoddart, David

  Whitlock, William

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Woodall, Alec

  Selby, Harry

  Tinn, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

  Urwin, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mr. John Ellis.

  Small, William

  Ward, Michael

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Cope, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Durant, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacGregor, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mather, Carol

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Freud, Clement

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Younger, Hon George

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Mr. Norman Tebbit and

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Mr. Jerry Wiggin.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Tony

  Hordern, Peter

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Industry (Amendment) Bill, now standing committed to a Committee of the whole House, be committed to a Standing Committee.

  WATERHOUSE COACHES LTD., POLEGATE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
  3.6 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: On 15th October 1974 Waterhouse Coaches Limited, of Polegate in my constituency, applied to the South-Eastern Area Traffic Commissioners for permission to operate holiday tours from Marine Parade, Eastbourne, to eight well-known resorts—Morecambe, Tenby, Torquay, Fort William, Ilfracombe, Llandudno, Cheltenham and Dollar. With the exception of those to Fort William and Dollar, which lasted 10 days, all the tours applied for were to last for eight days. There were to be pick-up points at Pole-gate and at Hailsham.
  The application was considered by the traffic commissioners in Eastbourne at
  614
  separate hearings on 7th January and 7th March 1975. On 27th March 1975 the three commissioners, a retired major-general, Councillor L. S. White, a member of the Hampshire County Council, and Councillor Norris, a member of the Eastleigh Borough Council, delivered their reserved judgment, from which I quote:
  "The commissioners note that the applicant is a popular and successful operator…and the evidence he has adduced supports such operations. Having carefully considered the evidence of need for the facilities the applicant now seeks to be able to offer, the Commissioners have concluded it is insufficient to justify making any grant."
  Waterhouse appealed against that decision.
  Eight months later, on 8th December 1975, Mr. John Finlay, a distinguished former civil servant, now in his sixty-eighth year, having been appointed by the Secretary of State as the inspector in this case, conducted a public inquiry at the Town Hall, Eastbourne. He wrote a 25-page report, which was received by the Secretary of State on 13th February 1976. That report recommended that the appeal should be dismissed. Twelve weeks later, on 6th May, the Secretary of State supported the decision of the traffic

  615
  commissioners, whom he had appointed, and of the inspector, whom he had appointed, and dismissed the appeal. It is that decision by the Secretary of State which I challenge this morning.
  It may be wondered why it was necessary to go through that protracted and costly exercise in nonsense in the first place, extending as it did over 19 months. The answer is that no one may operate a coach tour of the kind contemplated by Waterhouse without a licence. Unfortunately, the House denied me leave to bring in the Transport (Amendment) Bill on 2nd March this year. That Bill would have scrapped the whole licensing system apart from ensuring that crucial safety requirements were complied with. At the two hearings before the commissioners and at the public inquiry, Waterhouse's application was opposed by Southdown Motor Services Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Bus Company, the directors of which are appointed by the Secretary of State and all the shares in which are held by the Government.
  Southdown opposed the application because it was afraid of competition from Waterhouse. In itself, that is a massive condemnation of Southdown's policy. Why was Southdown so frightened of Waterhouse? Had the directors been reading the story of David and Goliath? The analogy is not false. Southdown has a capital of £3·6 million. Behind it lie the massive resources of the State. Waterhouse is a small, family business which started as a taxi firm just after the war. The Waterhouse family toiled and prospered. Steadily it built up the business, yet its capital today is only £2,800.
  Southdown owns 627 buses and 197 coaches. Waterhouse has 10 coaches and one minibus. Southdown employs 1,219 drivers, 253 mechanics and an administrative staff of 518. Waterhouse employs 10 drivers, two of whom are directors of the company, two mechanics, two apprentice mechanics and three office staff. The absurd procedures which we are debating now have cost this small company £3,000 already.
  At the time that the company came to make the application in the autumn of 1974, 684 local people had made inquiries whether it would be possible for
  616
  Waterhouse to run all-in package holiday tours. It was in response to those requests, mainly from retired people, that the application was made.
  Let me read from a letter which I received in January this year from one of my constituents, Miss Lilian Trickey, who lives in Eastbourne and is 81. She said:
  "I am disappointed to learn that Waterhouse Coaches have not, as yet, been able to obtain a licence to run coach holidays for the general public. For various reasons, mainly serious illness and death in my family, I had not had a holiday for years. I have in past years considered having a coach holiday with the Southdown Company, but it has always seemed to me too inconvenient, as they make such a very early start from Eastbourne. The Waterhouse coach is able to start about an hour later and, as only local people are involved, can get on the way much sooner. The whole holiday is much more personal and one can rely on getting returned to Eastbourne without undue delay. As you know, Eastbourne is full of elderly people, to whom arranged coach holidays make a definite appeal. I do hope that you will be able to make your influence felt in the appropriate quarter to help the Waterhouse people to get the licence they require. Their coaches are very satisfactory and they have been operating for years."
  In his letter of 6th May dismissing the appeal, the Minister acknowledged that the public wanted
  "a wider choice and more competition",
  yet he chose to ignore the people. He has prevented the pensioners having the holiday they wanted and still want. They and I reject and resent the proposition that the man in Whitehall knows best.
  The Minister has a discretion in cases of this kind. Those who wanted to go on these package tours are not the well-to-do. I dislike the phrase, but, to use the words which so often fall from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, those affected are ordinary working people. This decision is the unpleasant and unacceptable face of Socialism.
  When the chronicle of these times is written, the story of Waterhouse Coaches will not receive so much as a footnote in the history books, yet in this story of the struggle of Waterhouse and the pensioners of Polegate against Southdown Motor Services and the Secretary of State we find re-enacted, admittedly on a mini scale, that battle for freedom which those sent to this House have long fought on behalf of their constituents.

  617
  The Minister has dismissed the appeal. He has found in favour of the big battalions—Southdown and the National Bus Company—and against the small man, Waterhouse. He has discriminated against free enterprise and in favour of a giant State-owned quasi-monopoly.
  The Minister has said to the people of Polegate and Eastbourne who want to travel to Morecambe and Llandudno, to Tenby and Torquay, in Waterhouse coaches that they may not do so, that their wishes and freedom of choice are to be overriden, and that the ministerial veto, backed up by penalties of a fine and imprisonment, shall be used to prevent Waterhouse providing a service which it is well qualified to provide and which the people long to use.
  That decision is bitterly resented by my constituents. It is a decision taken after procedures which reveal the bureaucracy as a costly and time-consuming enemy of the public interest. Above all, it is a decision which underlies the growing gulf between Government and the governed and the increasing arrogance and insensitivity of the Executive. This debate has a dual purpose. It exposes ministerial decision which is unjustified and unjustifiable, but it at least gives the Minister the chance to think again.
  This week, the redoubtable and courageous small firm of Waterhouse has made application again to the traffic commissioners in Eastbourne, in terms identical to those rejected by the Minister, for permission to operate the eight coach tours. Predictably, the application is again being opposed by Southdown, which is fearful of seeing its monopoly eroded.
  This time, however, the traffic commissioners, spurred on perhaps by this debate, may decide to put the public interest first. If they do not, if for the second time they refuse the application, the Minister will have another opportunity to do what he should have done already and allow Waterhouse to provide that choice, that service and that freedom which no Government ought to deny.
  3.20 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on securing the opportunity to raise the case of a firm in his constituency, Waterhouse Coaches
  618
  Ltd., and on the lucid manner in which he presented his case. He has shown a continuing interest in the circumstances surrounding the appeal and has been assiduous in pursuing the case. The House has expressed an opinion on his views on the existing system on one occasion, but I know that that will not deter the hon. Gentleman in the coming debate on transport policy. I have no doubt that he will continue his campaign throughout the numerous debates we shall have on licensing and associated matters in the coming years.
  I am afraid that there is little I can say in reply to the hon. Gentleman's points on the appeal case itself. My right hon. Friend's reasons for reaching the decision he did on the merits of Mr. Waterhouse's case were set out in the decision letter, and I cannot enlarge upon them on this occasion. However, it might be helpful if I outline the background.
  As I understand the position, it was Waterhouse Coaches' contention throughout that, even if the legality of the company's tour operations were accepted, the demand for the kind of centred holiday which the appellants sought in their application to provide was not satisfied in the Eastbourne, Polegate and Hailsham areas, either because of the limited availability of the licensed services or because of the nature or accessibility of the facilities offered.
  Equally, the appellants were contending not that the existing facilities were inadequate but that what was needed was a wider choice and more competition. In his report the inspector confirmed that there was no difference between the characteristics of the National Bus Company's existing range of based tours and those for which Waterhouse was applying, save for a few minor amenities. He was of the view that to allow the application would be likely to lead to the abstraction of customers in varying degrees from the broadly comparable tours of the objector, Southdown Motor Services, which depended upon Eastbourne for many of its passengers.
  The inspector was also critical of the evidence of need that was provided. This relied on the replies to the appellants' questionnaires and the evidence of four public witnesses. He felt that, apart from being suspect in that two of the four

  619
  public witnesses admitted that they had given inaccurate replies, the distribution of the questionnaires focused too closely on Mr. Waterhouse's own appreciative customers to produce an objective picture of the wide public demand needed to support economically a further range of based tours on the comparatively large scale proposed.
  The inspector concluded that the foreseeable degree of further need was unpredictable but likely to be small and of an order which could easily be absorbed by the existing facilities, at present operating some 30 per cent. under capacity. Therefore, in view of the small scale of further predictable public demand and the possibility of absorption, he considered that it would be unfair to superimpose new facilities on the existing under-used facilities. Further grant could lead to wasteful competition with harmful results economically. He accordingly recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted the conclusions of the inspector that the statutory criteria by which the traffic commissioners must judge applications were not satisfied in the case of Mr. Waterhouse's application, and his recommendation was that the appeal be dismissed. The question of the legal validity of the decision is now, I understand, about to form the subject of an appeal to the High Court, and in those circumstances I cannot discuss that aspect of the matter further.
  Turning now to the question of the length of time between the initial application to the traffic commissioners in October 1974 and my right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal on 6th May 1976, I want first of all to point out that two separate consecutive processes were involved. The traffic commissioners' part in the story ended on 27th March 1975, when they gave their decision on the application. That decision was not a recommendation to my right hon. Friend but was a decision taken in its own right by a statutory body independent of the Government. In the vast majority of road service licence applications, the matter ends with the traffic commissioners' decision.
  Mr. Gow: The Minister says that the traffic commissioners are independent of
  620
  the Secretary of State, but are not the chairman of the traffic commissioners, as an individual, and all other traffic commissioners who are nominated by borough councils or county councils appointed by the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Marks: They are appointed, but it is wrong to suggest that they are people from Whitehall. As the hon. Member has pointed out, in this case they included in the main local public representatives.
  Waterhouse Coaches was, of course, fully entitled to appeal to my right hon. Friend, as it did on 7th May 1975. But we need to remember that this was a fresh step taken by the firm. One chapter in the story, the application to the commissioners, ended on 27th March 1975, and a separate chapter, the appeal to my right hon. Friend, started, at Mr. Waterhouse's initiative, on 7th May 1975. Until the appeal was lodged, my right hon. Friend had no standing in the matter.
  The interval between the lodging of the appeal and the issue of the letter conveying my right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal was almost exactly one year. I am ready to accept that the interval between the lodging of the appeal, in May 1975, and the local inquiry, in December, was a long one, perhaps even unduly long. Having said that, however, I ought to explain that it is never very easy to find quickly a date on which an appropriately qualified inspector is available and which is convenient to both appellants and respondents. This is clearly illustrated by the history of this case. An inquiry was originally arranged for early in November, but was cancelled at quite short notice at the appellants' request because the date had become inconvenient to the appellants' counsel. This is the sort of problem which frequently crops up.
  The Department is doing all that it can to reduce the interval between the lodging of these appeals and the holding of inquiries. On occasions this might even mean insisting on dates that are not entirely convenient to all the parties involved. We have speeded up the procedure by the discontinuance of the practice of awaiting the comments of the traffic commissioners on the grounds of appeal before going ahead with inquiry arrangements. In most cases this works

  621
  satisfactorily, although there are occasions when, having received those comments, appellants sometimes decide not to proceed with their appeal. The abortive work involved in such cases obviously delays other cases to a greater or less degree, and it is clear that not all ideas have only beneficial effects on speeding up procedure.
  In this particular case I have looked at the history and, as I said on 18th May in reply to a Question for Written Answer from the hon. Member, I am satisfied that there was no unreasonable delay in my Department between the date of the inquiry, 8th December 1975, and the date of the decision letter, 6th May 1976.
  It is true that the inquiry itself took only one day, but the inspector had to assimilate and report upon not only those proceedings but the record of the earlier proceedings before the traffic commissioners and the documents associated with the original application. Having assimilated this material, he then had to prepare a comprehensive report. Once he had done that, the Department in turn had to review the evidence and the inspector's recommendation to my right hon. Friend.
  All in all, this was a relatively straightforward case. Nevertheless, it involved nearly 150 pages of transcript of traffic court proceedings, an inspector's report of 25 pages, and 30 or so documents submitted by the parties to the traffic commissioners or to the inspector. I am satisfied that the Department, once it had the inspector's report and the other case papers to hand, gave this case an appropriately high priority amongst the other work in progress.
  Here I must touch upon the question of staff resources. The hon. Member will appreciate that constraints of staff resources inevitably mean that when a particular piece of work comes forward it can seldom be given immediate attention. I know, and the Department knows, that to the individual his own case is the most important one, and any delay in handling it cannot be anything but unsatisfactory. The Department was particularly conscious that in this case the appellants would be anxious to have the position clarified before the holiday season got into full swing. Even so, this case
  622
  had to be fitted in with the rest of the work which was in hand.
  One appellant's priority is another appellant's delay, and the only way in which every case could be given immediate attention would be greatly to increase the allocation of staff to these appeals. In the present economic circumstances I do not consider that this would be justified or likely—and nor, I think, would the hon. Member when he considers the question in terms of public expenditure and the size of the Civil Service. We must do and are doing the best with what staff resources we have got. Having said that, I must add that of course I would like to see these cases settled more quickly. We have made the changes in procedures to which I have already referred, and we shall continue to do what we can to make further improvements.
  The hon. Gentleman has also raised the question of the time involved in following through the necessary procedures involving an application to the traffic commissioners. In this case, Mr. Water-house's application was lodged in October 1974 and published in accordance with the regulations in November 1974. Various objections were received and a public sitting was arranged for 7th January 1975 to consider the application and the objections. The traffic commissioners expected that a single day's sitting would be enough. A second day's sitting, however, had to be arranged. This could not be done before 7th March because of the pressure of work on the commissioners and the need to reassemble the same panel of three. Two of the commissioners are part-timers drawn from a local panel. The commissioners reserved their decision at the public sitting and subsequently issued it in writing on 27th March.
  That was a long time, but we must remember the statutory requirements for publication of applications, objection periods and the need for a careful and fair hearing for both sides designed to safeguard the rights of all interested parties. Looking at the timetable with these considerations in mind, I do not think there can be any real complaint about the interval between the lodging of the application and the decision.
  The hon. Member's underlying point is that Mr. Waterhouse should not have had

  623
  to apply to the traffic commissioners in the first place. I am aware that the hon. Member wishes to see alterations in the road service licensing system for buses and coaches. He has said that his constituents who want to go on the tours proposed by Mr. Waterhouse have been denied that opportunity by the decision the commissioners made and which my right hon. Friend has upheld at the inspector's recommendation. He has also suggested that the decision represents bias in favour of a nationalised undertaking against private enterprise.
  The hon. Member will know that I disagree with his views on the wholesale dismantling of the licensing system. I would say that we should not be too hasty in dismantling a system which has stood the test of years and which both sides of the bus industry are anxious to see maintained. One of the underlying objectives of road service licensing as embodied in the Road Traffic Act is to see that the transport needs of an area are satisfied, but satisfied in such a way that companies which are already operating advertised services over fixed routes, or to fixed destinations, should get some degree of protection as long as they are giving good service to the public. This is reasonable when one remembers that those established operators are often running unprofitable but socially necessary stage carriage services. Their position would become even more financially precarious if other operators were given free rein to attack their more profitable business in a piecemeal way, leaving the unprofitable services well alone.
  Without going too far into the merits of the particular decision, I cannot accept the suggestion that it represents bias in favour of a nationalised undertaking against private enterprise. I would point out that, besides the objections lodged by the National Bus Company subsidiaries, three private firms also objected to the application, and one of these three
  624
  pursued the matter to the appeal stage. This demonstrates that the case was not one of public sector versus private sector. It also shows that there is not a monopoly situation for advertised tours for people in the Eastbourne area. There are three private firms in competition with the National Bus Company, though all admittedly in a relatively small way.
  The objection to Mr. Waterhouse's application was not that his was a privately-owned business seeking to compete with a public sector company. The problem was that the market for tours of that sort from the Eastbourne area was already fully provided for by the existing operators, which happened in this case to come from both ends of the scale: three small-to-medium-size firms on the one hand and the National Bus Company on the other.
  I should like to emphasise that there was never any suggestion that Mr. Water-house's company is not a thoroughly good and reputable undertaking. I have no doubt that he continues to do an excellent trade in the private hire field. I would suggest that any of the hon. Member's constituents who wish to use Mr. Waterhouse's services rather than those of the other operators in the area can do so by clubbing together to form private parties, as his continuing private hire trade demonstrates.
  To return finally to the decision itself, we must remember that the case has been considered carefully three times and that on all three occasions the same conclusion was reached: by the traffic commissioners, by the independent inspector and by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member mentioned a further application, but I am sure he will not expect me to anticipate what the independent traffic commissioners will do about that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Identity Passes
  Identity Passes
  PEERAGES (SUCCESSION RIGHTS)
  PEERAGES (SUCCESSION RIGHTS)
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Devolution (Universities)
  Devolution (Universities)
  Canderside Industrial Site
  Canderside Industrial Site
  Housing Finance (Review)
  Housing Finance (Review)
  Housing Costs
  Housing Costs
  House Purchase Procedures
  House Purchase Procedures
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Playgroups
  Playgroups
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Parental Choice
  Parental Choice
  Tourism
  Tourism
ENVIRONMENT
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Vehicle Registration (Disclosure)
  Vehicle Registration (Disclosure)
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Windmills
  Windmills
  Boothferry District Council (Social Workers' Pay)
  Boothferry District Council (Social Workers' Pay)
  Wheels
  Wheels
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Road Signs (Metrication)
  M54
  M54
  Farm Workers (Housing)
  Farm Workers (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Rating Relief)
  Disabled Persons (Rating Relief)
  Water and Sewerage Schemes
  Water and Sewerage Schemes
  Government Chauffeurs
  Government Chauffeurs
  London Transport
  London Transport
INDUSTRY
  Paper
  Paper
  Postal Collections
  Postal Collections
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Credit Firms (Questionnaires)
  Credit Firms (Questionnaires)
  Drugs Manufacturer (Anti-Trust Breaches)
  Drugs Manufacturer (Anti-Trust Breaches)
  Oil Products
  Oil Products
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
TRADE
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Paper (Exports)
  Paper (Exports)
  Cotton Shirts (Imports)
  Cotton Shirts (Imports)
  Pilotage
  Pilotage
  Prices and Market Shares (Britain and Japan)
  Prices and Market Shares (Britain and Japan)
  Armaments
  Armaments
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forms
  Forms
  Poultry (Slaughter and Dressing)
  Poultry (Slaughter and Dressing)
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Proteins
  Proteins
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation Personnel
  British National Oil Corporation Personnel
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Radiological Safety (Report)
  Radiological Safety (Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Electoral Law (Speaker's Conference)
  Electoral Law (Speaker's Conference)
  Prison Officers (Overtime)
  Prison Officers (Overtime)
  Race Relations Board (Cost)
  Race Relations Board (Cost)
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  British Citizenship
  British Citizenship
  Murder Convictions
  Murder Convictions
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Residence Permits
  Residence Permits
  Police (Injuries on Duty)
  Police (Injuries on Duty)
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Television Sets
  Television Sets
  Prison Department Land and Housing (Haverhill)
  Prison Department Land and Housing (Haverhill)
  Age of Consent
  Age of Consent
  Contempt of Court
  Contempt of Court
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
DEFENCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Casualties
  Casualties
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Arms Supplies (Channel Islands Route)
  Arms Supplies (Channel Islands Route)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Legislation
  Legislation
  Army and Police Casualties
  Army and Police Casualties
  Homosexual Law Reform
  Homosexual Law Reform
  Prisoners (Transfer from England)
  Prisoners (Transfer from England)
EMPLOYMENT
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Wales
  Wales
  London Action Committee
  London Action Committee
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Search and Entry Powers
  Search and Entry Powers
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Income Tax (Married Couples)
  Income Tax (Married Couples)
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Profits (Private Sector)
  Profits (Private Sector)
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Tax Refunds (Married Persons)
  Tax Refunds (Married Persons)
  Oil-related Employment
  Oil-related Employment
  Annuities (Inherited from the State)
  Annuities (Inherited from the State)
  Banking
  Banking
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  European Community Directive
  European Community Directive
  Taxes and Subsidies
  Taxes and Subsidies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Miss Felicia Antwiaa
  Miss Felicia Antwiaa
  Health Centres (Peterborough)
  Health Centres (Peterborough)
  Domiciliary Services (Cambridgeshire)
  Domiciliary Services (Cambridgeshire)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Earnings-Related Supplements
  Earnings-Related Supplements
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Doctors (Bleepers)
  Doctors (Bleepers)
  Rabies (Vaccine)
  Rabies (Vaccine)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Paisley (Benefit Payments)
  Paisley (Benefit Payments)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Administrative and Clerical Posts
  Administrative and Clerical Posts
  Family Income Supplement (One-parent Families)
  Family Income Supplement (One-parent Families)
  Supplementary Benefit (Codes of Instructions)
  Supplementary Benefit (Codes of Instructions)

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

LORD WEIDENFELD
Sir Arthur George Weidenfeld, Knight, having been created Baron Weidenfeld, of Chelsea in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Melchett and the Lord Pakenham.

WORLD FOOD COUNCIL: ROME MEETING
2.31 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the discussions of the World Food Council at Rome and what proposals were made or supported by the British delegation.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Council endorsed the report of its May preparatory meeting and referred the recommendations to the United Nations and Member States for consideration. Her Majesty's Government will co-operate fully with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the World Food Council who are charged with closing the gap between the target for the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the already pledged total contribution, which of course includes our own.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask her whether she can say something about these recommendations? For example, did the Council consider proposals for increasing the food supplies of the world, such as fertilising the
768
deserts—which is now possible—and farming the oceans? Did it consider practical proposals of that kind ?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The Council considered practical measures. On fertilisers, we consider that their effective use is one of the key factors in increasing food production. Some of the resolutions from the Group of 77 came up rather too late for acceptance, but they have been passed to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Note was taken of them and they have been passed on for consideration.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it the case that the Group of 77 proposed that reserve stocks should be created not merely to stabilise prizes but to meet droughts and the danger of famines? If so, what view was taken with regard to that proposal?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as always, my noble friend has asked me the most difficult question of the lot. The whole question of food stocks, though absolutely vital, is complicated because different views are taken about how it should be done. Stabilisation of prices is of enormous importance and Her Majesty's Government played a very constructive part in all this. The Council urged an annual food aid target of 10 million tons, but we believe that food stocks are more important, and not only to cover emergencies. Quite how this will be done will need to be worked out in the different international bodies.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the importance of fish farming was brought forward at the Conference?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords; the noble Baroness will be delighted to know that it was considered and approved of.

BRISTOL: CITY WARD REVISIONS
2.35 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

769
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress the Local Government Boundary Commission is making in revising the wards of the City of Bristol; and why there has been no such revision since 1951.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I understand that, at the request of the Bristol City Council, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England extended the timetable for the review of the City's electoral arrangements. The Council published yesterday a revised draft scheme inviting representations on it from local interests. In the past, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1933, the procedure for boroughs wishing to alter their wards was by Petition to Her Majesty. The wards of Bristol were altered by an Order in Council of 1953 using this procedure; a further minor change was made by an Order in Council of 1964.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but can he say when he expects the Boundary Commission to report on this matter? Would he not agree that the ward boundaries within the city are now totally unrepresentative and produced some very extraordinary voting figures last May, and that this situation would be most unfair in the event of a by-election in any of the wards?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without commenting on the latter point, because this is really a matter between the Commission on the one hand and the Council on the other, as I understand it, the Council have invited representations to reach them by 10th August and they will meet on 2nd September to consider those representations. The Commission has not yet been informed of all the details of this scheme but the position, I am sure, is that it will push ahead with this as soon as possible thereafter.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in view of the letter written to the Bristol City Council, can the Minister say in what circumstances the Home Secretary has power to intervene in a matter like this?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the position is really that this is a matter between the Commission and the Council. The Council can put up a scheme and, in certain circumstances, there can be some form of local inquiry presided over by an Assistant Commissioner. The Commission may ultimately put up a scheme to the Home Secretary. For these reasons, I am obviously anxious to avoid going into greater detail.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Lord that any district council can put up a scheme to the Commission if it thinks its ward boundaries are unsatisfactory ?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, a general review is taking place as a result of the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales. As a result of that, a series of boundary reviews are taking place at the present moment.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is the final solution of all this likely to come by an order presented in either House?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords ; this is not a matter for an order presented in either House. It is a matter for the Home Secretary to pronounce upon once he has received the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the same review is going on in Scotland?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Not without notice, I fear, my Lords.

THE ATTACK ON INFLATION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Jacques will repeat a Statement on the attack on inflation.
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

POLICE BILL
2.40 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: 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 Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR Of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Police Complaints Board]:
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 1 :
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("Prime Minister ") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
The noble Viscount said: This very simple Amendment proposes that the members to be appointed to the Police Complaints Board should he appointed by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the Prime Minister. I believe that most people will consider this suggestion to be appropriate. The Lord Chancellor appoints most magistrates and makes recommendations for most, or many, judicial appointments. He acts as a sensitive link between the Legislature the Executive and the Judiciary. His independence inspires confidence with the public, and I have reason to believe that what I am proposing would be a more acceptable suggestion in terms of the Police Service in general than the present proposal which involves the Prime Minister of the day.
In recent years there has been a growing tendency to allocate to Secretaries of State, as Departmental Ministers, responsibility for a vast number of new appointments, and the increase in patronage there has been enormous. This has also happened to some extent in the case of Prime Ministers. It is not desirable in itself that the Prime Minister's time should be taken up with a host of miscellaneous appointments about which he cannot himself possibly be informed. His office should not be a repository for such a mass of miscellaneous functions if such can be avoided. In the case of the Police Complaints Board we are dealing with a quasi-judicial function, and it seems to me to be in every way preferable that the appointments should be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.
I believe that in another place the Minister objected that the Lord Chancellor would not be a Member of that House. Fortunately, it is true that that is so and that he is a Member of our House. It will be the unanimous hope of this House that that position will always obtain. But the fact that the Lord Chancellor cannot be a Member of the other place I should have thought would be of no possible disadvantage or drawback in the case we are considering. It was also said, I think, that the Lord Chancellor did not want the job. Well, I do not know the answer to that one. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is certainly not, in our view, one who goes rushing out to seek new appointments, but he is known to all your Lordships as an example to us all in his devotion to the public service, and I am sure he would not reject any responsibility that might be laid on him by Parliament.
So it seems to me as, I understand, it seems to the police authorities and to the Police Service as a whole (so far as one can gather the opinion of the Police Service) that the Lord Chancellor would be the best choice for this role. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies he will tell me that on consideration he agrees with my proposal. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My noble friend Lord Amory has just said that the Lord Chancellor was reported in another place as having said that he did not want this job. In fact I do not think that he went quite so far as that;

773
he said that he was less than enthusiastic about it. Could we now prevail upon the noble and learned Lord to increase the degree of enthusiasm which the other place was told about ? I do not think that this is altogether fanciful, and I know that it has been the subject of considerable discussion both in another place and behind the scenes. But the history of it is that a great number of people in another place considered that, from the constitutional point of view rather than from any personal point of view (which applies throughout this discussion) the Home Secretary was not the right person to make the appointments because he was already so tremendously bound up with the police in many different functions, including his role as the police authority for the Metropolis. There is also the point that the Prime Minister, too, has a great connection with the police in that he is, after all, the chief of the security service, and that is distinctly bound up with police operations. Although I do not suppose that disciplinary complaints so often arise out of the security aspect of the matter, nevertheless it must be a possibility.
Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, who, so far as I know, has no connection at all with the police in his official capacity, might be able to carry out these appointments. But if not, then I, and I think other noble Lords as well, should like to know why it is that he has this reluctance, because we think that he would do the task very well.
Lord PARGITER: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I should like to say that I support the proposal and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will withdraw any objections which he might have. I think that the further this function is removed from what might be termed the administrative part of the Government—which would be the Home Office and the Prime Minister—the better. There is considerable suspicion about how the Board will work, and it would get off to a much better start if the Lord Chancellor were to he responsible for the appointments. I do not say this in any derogatory sense concerning what the Prime Minister might do or, for that matter, what the Home Secretary might do: they might appoint the same kind of people. But the important thing is what appears to
774
be done. I think it highly important that the appointments to the Board, particularly the appointment of the chairman, should be made by someone who stands outside any question of police control.
Viscount BARRINGTON: Before the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, replies, I should like to support the Amendment on the grounds that the only two Lord Chancellors I have heard of in history who were both executed and canonised did not want the job. I do not know of any Prime Minister who has been either executed or canonised, but that is a point to be taken into consideration in deciding who is to take on this job.
2.49 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I shall refrain from the temptation of entering into the untimely death stakes with which the noble Viscount has just so cheerfully confronted me. I feel greatly flattered by the confidence which has been expressed in my Office by all noble Lords who have spoken. I should like to make it clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, that in opposing this Amendment— as, I fear, I shall do—I am not seeking to evade any work or responsibility which I should properly undertake and which it would be competent for my Office adequately and properly to perform. But the Government, and indeed I myself, think that the Prime Minister is a more appropriate person than the Lord Chancellor to appoint the members of the Board. The Board are to consist of lay members. It is not an appointment for which legal qualifications are required, although they would not be a disqualification.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated, the original proposal was that the Home Secretary would make these appointments, and there was much discussion of this matter in another place. It is true that there was some support for the proposal that the Lord Chancellor should make these appointments, but I think I am right in saying that in the end it was agreed generally that the Prime Minister should do so, and the Bill was amended accordingly.
The truth of the matter is that, while the Lord Chancellor is responsible for making or recommending a wide variety

775
of appointments of legally qualified persons to judicial or quasi-judicial positions, his Office does not really keep the sort of records which would be necessary for the appointment of lay persons of the kind needed for the membership of this Board; and certainly the Office has not, I think, the resources to do so. In regard to the appointment of justices of the peace, I think that the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor is a quite separate matter. It is an exceptional class of appointment where, for a very long time now, the Lord Chancellor has been assisted in the making of the appointments to the bench by an elaborate structure of advisory committees up and down the country, and I do not think that it is really a precedent for the appointment of the members of this Board.
On the other hand, the Prime Minister and his Office have a great many comparable powers of appointment, and in my view the Prime Minister would be able to exercise an independent judgment based on broader sources of information than would be available, either now or hereafter, to the Lord Chancellor. In the particular case of the present Prime Minister, of course, he was at one time in his career the adviser to the Police Federation, and is singularly well qualified, therefore, to have a view about the sort of laymen who should man this important Board. Therefore, it is not out of any desire to avoid further additions to the interesting variety of tasks which fall upon the Lord Chancellor that I resist this suggestion. I think that the better Office for fulfilling the power of appointment is that of the Prime Minister, and I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept that view.
Viscount AMORY: I am disappointed. I had hoped that as soon as I had sat down, or as soon as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had sat down, at least two former Lords Chancellor would have leapt to their feet and said that they thought this attitude was very poor-spirited and that they for their part would have taken it on most willingly. But that has not happened. I feel that if I press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor much further he will say nolo episcopari, or something in English.
776
The original idea of the Home Secretary, which at first sight looked attractive in some ways, was abandoned for perhaps the reasons which have been hinted at and because the Home Secretary is in one capacity a police authority on his own ; so perhaps this suggestion of the Prime Minister is in all the circumstances more appropriate than the Home Secretary. But I myself still feel that the better office would be that of the Lord Chancellor, and not that of the Prime Minister. I am horrified at the growth of miscellaneous duties which seem to be descending upon and added to the Office of the Prime Minister of the day. I have never found that it has been a great success to press a function or a new job on somebody unless he is enthusiastic to take it. Sometimes it does not work out too well, and despite great abilities the person concerned falls down on his job. I should hate that to happen in these circumstances. Therefore, although it goes against the grain with me because I still feel that the suggestion I have made would be the better one, I feel that in all the circumstances, with great reluctance and sorrow, I shall beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill ?
2.56 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I understand that there is no need for me to move my Amendment to leave out Clause I since it has been put in another form ; but, if I may, I will still, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, before the debate, state what was in my mind. This was not a wrecking Amendment; it was intended to open the way for a simpler scheme based on the lines of the scheme in the Bill, which is to introduce an independent element into the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police and, at the same time, to avoid any policeman being put into double jeopardy. I have the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, to say that had he not been abroad he would have added his name to the Amendment.
Some noble Lords may think it is rather late in the day for me to have put down this Amendment, but first thoughts on a subject like this are not necessarily the best, and many men and women who know

777
more of the detail and more about this case than I do have spent not months but, think, rather, years considering this problem and have still at the end of the day arrived at only a very small measure of agreement. Since what I am going to propose is so much simpler than what is in the Bill, I feel it is not impossible to draft something which covers those points for the Report stage.
Like all noble Lords, I have seen a few unwanted Bills in my day, but I do not think I have ever seen a Bill which had quite so few friends as this one. I understand there have been very long discussions, as I have said, and a very small measure of agreement among interested organisations. The Association of Chief Constables, for instance, said, as reported in the Press only recently:
" Members of the Association are unanimous in finding the Bill objectionable in principle, likely to be both costly and harmful, and without any discernible merit ".
That is fairly clear. The association representing superintendents have also expressed their objections; and so, I understand, have the Police Federation.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With great respect, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is a clear point here to which I am sure he would wish to address himself, and it is this. On Second Reading your Lordships' House decided, I think without a single exception, that it was in favour of an independent element. The position of the Police Federation and the superintendents' association has been stated quite clearly. Both, to a greater or lesser degree, were doubtful about the need for an independent element, but if there should be an independent element they are in favour, broadly speaking, of the Government's proposals.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I do not want to make any point which the noble Lord would think unfair. The only group of policemen who I believe have not expressed a view are the special constables, and they do not happen to have an organisation. Then, the Association of County Councils have again expressed their misgivings, shall I say, about the proposals in the Bill. One of the consequences is to spend a lot of money and to add to the number of officials and paper in circulation, without adding one single policeman to our overworked and
778
understrength national police forces. And I feel that it is hardly responsible for us to have taken up so much time here—and perhaps the same applies to another place—in trying to turn this generally unwanted Bill into law.
Of the many alternatives put forward, I expect we have all noticed the alternative put forward by the Association of County Councils. That was the first one, which I think most of us will agree was unacceptable. They then put forward an alternative which came nearer to what the ordinary citizen might like to see. I am going to claim that my proposal, if somewhat similar to their second alternative, is better, cheaper, simpler and presents no great drafting problems and might well be put into the Bill before the Report stage if—and this is a possibility—it is not discovered that it may be brought into operation by administrative means and so enable the Bill to be dropped and achieve a very large part of our object without actual legislation.
My plan would be this. The Home Secretary should set up a panel in the area of every police authority. The men and women on it would he of the same calibre as those who are nominated as JPs. There are numerous people of that standing in most areas who have retired early, returned from abroad but are too old, owing to the present regulations, to be nominated to the Bench. They would elect their own chairman. On receipt of a complaint at headquarters of any police force, the procedures would be exactly the same as under the existing law except that either the accused policeman or the chief constable may elect for two members of the panel to sit and take part in any investigation.
I am inclined to favour two members rather than one, but I think it is suggested in a later Amendment that one member of the panel, as set out in the Bill, might in fact achieve the same result. I am inclined to favour two members and that they should share the responsibility for the decision, but that only the chief constable would be responsible for any punishment that followed. For the rest. the proceedings would be the same as at present. I believe it is the duty of a police authority today to be informed about complaints, which means that they could call for information as before about any

779
individual complaint and the way it has been handled. In addition, I should like to see it understood that the lay members on any inquiry might communicate on their own initiative with the relevant police authority.
Under this scheme the additional costs to the public would be negligible—mainly subsistence and travelling for the panel members—and I cannot see a reason for one single new official to be appointed.
This plan does not go so far as the plan in the Bill. I do not want to disguise that. It does not provide a central office where general intelligence and the coordination of complaints could take place. But surely a good deal could he done, if it were really needed, by the existing Home Office resources.
Since it has proved impossible to get general agreement between all the bodies concerned, I submit that it is better to try something simple on the lines of my suggestion now and review the position again in two or three years' time in the light of experience when it might be discovered that something more elaborate should be put in its place. The plan I offer today—that is, that the Government should insert in the Bill, in lieu of the unwanted Complaints Board therein described—something simpler but on the same lines. Some might think all this too good to be true; but T offer it in all humility. I beg to move.
3.4 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am bound to say, having been involved in this matter for the past two years, that it is an attractive thought that we could move towards a simpler scheme. If the noble Lord had put down a detailed Amendment incorporating the proposals that he has made to the House, I suspect that he would have found his proposals were faced with a very substantial degree of opposition from one or other—or indeed many—of the police or local authority bodies involved in this matter. Perhaps I may repeat the point I made—and I apologise to the noble Lord—when, with characteristic courtesy, he gave way to me. I should make clear the position of some of the police organisations. There has been, with great respect, a certain amount of over-statement about the unanimity of the police opposition to this Bill.
780
It is perfectly true, as I indicated to the Committee when I intervened in the course of the noble Lord's speech, that many people in the Police Service think that the present arrangements are perfectly satisfactory. That is the view of many people in the Police Federation, the Super-intendants' Association and Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not the view of Parliament; it is not the view of the other place; it is not the view of this House as expressed on Second Reading. It is not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who, when Home Secretary, made it clear that he was in favour of an independent element so far as the investigation of complaints against the police were concerned.
If we accept that there is to be a change—and the noble Lord has advocated Change—I should like to clarify the position of the Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association. It is right that their views should be taken into account. Their views have tended to be rather ignored in the course of the past few days. Both organisations have made their position absolutely clear that, broadly speaking, they are satisfied with the 1964 Act. As a result of the debate in the last Parliament, the Working Party was set up by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. From his view about a particular type of independent review of which he was in favour and the view of another place and this House on Second Reading, it is clear that a change of some sort is required. I should like to quote from a letter from the Secretary of the Police Federation to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Law Officers Department. This makes the position of the Federation clear:
" It appears to us that many of the safeguards we talked about have now been included in the Bill and, for this reason, we now clearly support the Government in the presentation of the Bill in its original form ".
We now come to the position of the Police Superintendents' Association. They make the same qualification about their general position and the satisfactory situation, as they see it, of the existing law. If there is to be a change, they make their position clear:
" This Association has since the adjournment "—
that is, the adjournment of the Standing Committee of another place—

781
" considered the matter in some depth and has had consultations with a number of the interested parties. In consequence of these considerations and consultations, I have to inform you that it is our desire that the Police Bill continues on its Parliamentary course largely in its present form subject to the necessary safeguards being provided as set out by the Police staff associations ".
I might add that those safeguards have been met. That, therefore, is the situation so far as two of the major police organisations are concerned. Their views have not been quoted as often as others in the past few days.
The noble Lord then touched on the proposals of the Association of County Councils. I always listen with great interest to his views on the police, because I know of his close personal interest in these matters. He said that the first position of the Association as expressed publicly on the Bill was unsatisfactory. I agree. They met overwhelming opposition from every police organisation and, quite apart from that, there were grounds, so far as the general public interest was concerned, why their recommendations were wrong. The noble Lord seemed to be rather more attracted by the second round of recommendations that they made. I am not clear whether the noble Lord would have gone right down the road with them
Lord INGLEWOOD: No, not right down the road.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In that case, he is in very good company, because the Association of Metropolitan Authorities agree with him. They were strongly opposed to those proposals. I in no sense want to appear critical, because I was interested in what the noble Lord said, but it is difficult to deal with another scheme which is presented orally and which we do not have in front of us. I should like to make a few comments.
First, with great respect, though I followed with great care what the noble Lord said, I suspect that the proposals he made will meet with a fairly significant degree of opposition from within the Police Service. That is not an unimportant criterion. Apart from that, he seemed to take the view that a series of panels, which presumably would have to be serviced by staff, would be less costly than the present proposals. I doubt whether that would be so. He seemed
782
to be as enthusiastic as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in putting a responsibility, not, in this case, on the Lord Chancellor's Department, but on the Home Office who apparently would be prepared to staff what would be 43 local committees dealing with a series of local complaints which would be adjudicated upon by panels of justices of the peace.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not think that my noble friend said justices of the peace ". He said persons of the same calibre as justices of the peace.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am much obliged. I take note of the correction by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord PANNELL: I understood the noble Lord to say that they would be justices of the peace and beyond the age of normal judicial service. In fact, he wanted to recruit people over 75 years of age.
Lord INGLEWOOD: May I make this clear ? I said persons of the same calibre and that there were many in many districts who, through early retirement or coming back from abroad, were too old to be considered under existing rules for appointment to the Bench; and they were often under-employed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: With respect, already two of us have misunderstood the character of the noble Lord's proposal, which indicates that it is difficult to deal with proposals made orally and not in writing. If the noble Lord would like to put down Amendments, while I would not suggest that they would meet with warm enthusiasm and support from these Benches, it would give us the opportunity of a far more serious discussion, which I am sure the noble Lord would favour. We have had an expression of the noble Lord's view; but, with great respect, at this stage of the Bill I do not think it is possible to comment with the degree of thoroughness which the noble Lord's speech justifies, if one is simply given an oral indication of the noble Lord's proposals.
There is one other comment that I would make to the noble Lord. He said—and here I did get it right—that only the chief

783
constable would be responsible for punishment. That is certainly the Government's proposal in this Bill: that only chief constables would be dealing with punishment. In most cases the matter will be dealt with as at the moment: where there are tribunals only the chief constable will decide the punishment. Therefore, what the noble Lord is recommending is what the Government are proposing. I am in agreement. The position is this. If the noble Lord would like to put forward an alternative scheme, it would be sensible to do so before Report and we can then have a more informed debate than at the moment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: When my noble friend is considering whether or not to pursue that invitation, I wonder whether he would bear in mind this point. There have been nearly as many schemes as there have been people to invent them but, at any rate, running commonly through a large number of them—including one from Justice, for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was responsible and which he presented at one stage—has been that there should be a central body rather than a large number of individual local bodies. I can see that there may be economies of scale or staff of one sort or another; but one of the things that impresses me most about the desirability of having a central body rather than a number of different ones—43 spread around the country—is the question of uniformity.
The job of the Board under this Bill, and under most of the other suggestions put forward, is not solely that of sitting as a disciplinary tribunal. I would anticipate that that would be a comparatively small part of what the membership would turn out to be doing. Of far more prevalence will be the inspection of all the complaints that come in against policemen all over England and Wales. There will, I have no doubt, be a certain amount of discussion about the sort of complaints that are coming in; the sort of things that are happening and the sort of things that are worrying the public—possibly, for all I know, some types of activities in which the police are engaging on which they may wish to comment adversely.
784
If this is going to be done, the admirable local people who would sit and perform some function under my noble friend's scheme would be looking only at what is happening in their own police authority area. There is no machinery under his proposal for them to pool their thoughts and their experiences and suggestions in any way, so that they would be of benefit to anyone else. One can think immediately of the advantages of doing that; but one suggestion that I would make is that it may be that there is a particular sort of thing happening, perhaps in relation to demonstrations and so on, which tends to happen whenever there is a demonstration. If there happened to be one in Birmingham, one in Manchester and one in London and very much the same sort of conflict of some type between the police and the public occurring in each case, the local West Midlands board would not necessarily know about the Greater Manchester occasion or the one in Greater London. They would certainly not necessarily have a uniformity of approach about how to deal with the matter, and there would be no machinery whereby they can put their heads together and decide whether this had some elements of a national problem which ought to be tackled on a national scale.
I do not see any lines of communication under my noble friend's proposal for this sort of thing. There may be other objections to it as well, but this one I think to be of extreme importance. It is the all-embracing nature of the inspection of complaints against the police by some central board which is the best guarantee that complaints will be put into a proper perspective from the point of view of the complainant and of the policemen concerned and the police force as a whole. I doubt whether the best way to do it would be the sort of local ad hoc body suggested by my noble friend.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I know what a controversial Bill this is because everybody has said so. Did I understand the noble Lord aright—because I support in very large measure my noble friend's proposals—that no decision should be taken today, but that we should wait until the Report stage, when my noble friend can then put forward a proposal in detail ? I think this is very important. Could the noble Lord answer that ?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: As I said to the noble Lord, although I could not in any way hold out hope of warmhearted approval from the Government of his proposals, because they carry with them a number of inherently unsatisfactory features, not least the one identified by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I suggest to the noble Lord that if he wished to put down an Amendment at the Report stage we could have a more informed debate on his proposal than would be possible today, when we have had the advantage of hearing him express his view orally but have not seen his proposal in writing.
I would in no way underestimate the difficulties involved. So many schemes have been put up by wholly well-intentioned Members of another place, and elsewhere, that I do not believe the noble Lord will find it as easy to do so as he might have imagined in the first instance. If the noble Lord would like to have a go at it we can have a more informed debate on his proposal at the Report stage.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I am grateful for that; but as a magistrate of long standing, having now lived a great number of years, I should like to put one or two points. I wonder whether it has ever been regarded as possible that, instead of having the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister or whoever it may be, we might have the Privy Council. There will be many people in the Privy Council with wide experience over a wide field and this would give confidence to the general public. The general public regard the Prime Minister as much more " political " than the Lord Chancellor. As the Lord Chancellor does not think it is a good idea, perhaps we might try the Privy Council.
It is terribly difficult to have a scheme, because in certain parts of this country there are people who are much more against the police, since in those areas the police have more difficult things to do than in other areas—and of course there are other areas where the police arc highly respected and looked on as friends of the people. This point has not been mentioned so far, but it is tremendously important. If one takes one or two of the areas where there have been outbreaks of
786
rioting and so on, there are many people there who take part in those riots who could very easily put forward a large number of complaints against the police which would be entirely unjustified. Again, if one takes an area where rioting is not quite so popular as it is in other parts of the country, one would naturally find there people less inclined to make frivolous complaints about the police. If I may say so with great respect, I think this is tremendously important and we have hardly taken into account the differences of view among people in different parts of the country in respect of the police.
Since this Bill is intended to help the police more than anybody else, it seems to me important to look at the matter over a wide field. I cannot say any more than that because I am not in the position to offer a great deal of useful advice, but I should have thought it would be much better if the noble Lord would say that we could all have another look at the matter before proceeding with these very controversial and, in many cases, unacceptable clauses that are already in the Bill.
Lord PARGITER: Is it not a fact that we are at the moment discussing a Motion on whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill ? It seems to me we are not discussing anything else.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not know that that is very fair. My noble friend made it clear that he had a scheme which was consistent with the omission of Clause 1. I intervene only to say two or three sentences. I thought I detected a faint note of reproach in the voice of my noble friend Lord Amory regarding the previous Amendment, and perhaps there might also be a faint note of reproach coming from my noble friend Lord Inglewood over this clause. I should like to explain to the Committee that I am being neither curmudgeonly nor sulking in any way but believe I may have put myself in baulk on Second Reading. I made it plain then that I did not like this Bill at all and that I should have preferred a scheme of a totally different character. Therefore I do not think I can help the Committee very much on various proposals for improving it. I wish it were not there.
Lord CLITHEROE: May I ask one question. May I be told whether the words beginning at line 10:
" The members of the Board shall not include any person who is or has been a constable in any part of the United Kingdom "—
include a special constable ?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am not as well equipped to answer that question as I should be. I suspect the answer is that it does not include a special constable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, thinks that it does and it is almost certain that he is right and I am wrong. I will let the noble Lord have the answer. It was taken to be a matter of great importance by the police organisations, and in particular by the Federation, that there should be an exclusion of people who have served in the Police Service. However, I will gladly look into the point so far as special constables are concerned and will reply to the noble Lord.
Lord CLITHEROE: There are different sorts of special constables: for example, I was a special constable for a fortnight in 1926.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Reference to Board of complaint reports]:
3.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out (" and ").
The noble Viscount said: It will be plain to those who have studied the words that I have put down that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to speak to them together. I am sure I should do an injustice to the Committee if I suggested that anybody found a certain amount of difficulty in following the machinery of this Bill, but I must confess that at first sight I was not altogether certain how it was going to work and have greatly benefited from reading the prodigious discussions in another place, which taught me a great deal. However, despite literally volumes of words that were spoken there, I am still not entirely certain that full justice has been done to one of the most important people involved in this machinery: that is, the complainant.
When my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley started the process which has led to this Bill, it was done because there was a widespread feeling that complainants were not being satisfied with the way the police were investigating their complaints under the Police Act. I do not know whether that is right or not, but that was the genesis of the whole thing and it must underline the whole of the Bill, because that is what we are trying to put right.
If one looks at the legislation itself, l am not sure that the complainant will find he has carried away very many trophies—that is, if one simply looks at the text. After all, we have now set up the Board under Clause 1, and we then find that it is starting to play a role under Clause 2, when a complaint is made. It does not get into the act at all to start with, because the police carry out the investigation of the complaint in the first place. That is sensible, because they are the best people to investigate that sort of thing, and no one complains about that. But in the process of investigation, and very much as part of it, there comes into it the Board. They may come into it simply as onlookers if they are not involved in any sort of disciplinary tribunal. They may also be onlookers if there is any criminal prosecution brought on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or they may be involved indirectly later on the occasion of the disciplinary tribunal.
Of course, if there is an ordinary tribunal hearing whereby the police themselves investigate the matter, the Board will not play any direct part. I can envisage the complainant saying, " What good to me is this Board ? How do I get at it? How do I impress upon them my point of view? They are hidden away in the interstices of the police investigation and in a rare number of cases they may actually take part in a hearing, but usually they will simply look at the papers and learn and inwardly digest, but they will do nothing for me."
I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris—and this is really why I put down these Amendments—to try to explain to the Committee and to anyone who wishes to read our debates in the official pages of Hansard (and perhaps somebody will) how it is that complainants are actually going to benefit.
What I have suggested in this Amendment is that when the chief officer of police—I think the deputy chief constable, as a rule—has finished his investigation of the complaint, he has then under the provisions of Clause 2 to send certain things to the Board, which are set out—a copy of the complaint, a memorandum by him saying what he thinks are the merits of the complaint and whether he has preferred disciplinary charges, and, if not, why not, and then there is the question of any exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are important, because where they exist the Board themselves may become involved in any disciplinary hearing under Clause 4.
I suggest to the Committee that we might give a bonus to the complainant at this stage by allowing him, either when he first makes his complaint, or later, if he did it orally and would like to back it up in writing, the opportunity to make certain that the Board, even if they will not take any active part in the proceedings subsequently, or even if there is to be a criminal prosecution, are directly aware of his views and, in particular, of any reason that he has to suggest why the Board themselves should be involved in any disciplinary hearing as a special tribunal under Clause 4.
I suppose that anybody who makes a complaint is liable to think that his case is rather a special one, and the Board are not bound to act upon it. But, at least, I think the complainant would like to have a direct channel whereby he can place his attitude and his representation before the Board for them to consider, on his side of it, whether there are exceptional circumstances. All I am suggesting, therefore, is that in addition to the things that the Bill requires the police to send to the Board, they should also have to send any representation by the complainant which suggests that the Board themselves, if there is to be a disciplinary hearing, should take part in it.
I have no doubt that there are many other ways in which complainants will be able to get in touch with the Board. I am sure that they can write to them direct. I am also sure that they can make representations through the police, and the police will faithfully pass them on. But I believe that this is something worth
790
discussing, and it is something on which the Committee and people outside would like to have their lines clear. They would like to know exactly how it is done. What would be the effect of writing to the police? Would the Board hear about it and would the police really pass it on, or would it become submerged, hidden and kept away from sight ? Can complainants write direct to the Board and, if so, what will happen to their representations? Who will see it ? Will it go to a member, or will it simply go to an official and disappear from view ? These are the kind of things which I believe the independent element is set up to do, and if we do not get the public's confidence in their ability to do it then, very largely, the point of this legislation will be lost. So I invite a discussion on this point and, at the very least, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should tell us how it will work. I beg to move.
3.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: This is an appropriate week in which to say that I believe the score at the moment is fifteen love in favour of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He was quite right about special constables. So I in no way complain about any possible curmudgeonary behaviour on his part. I regard him as a notable ally in this matter, or at least as extremely helpful, in that he was right on this matter; and I regret that, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, is concerned special constables are excluded.
The noble Viscount has raised an important question on the situation of a complainant. How will he be advantaged by this system ? I think he goes to the heart of this matter, and it is right that I should try to specify what his position will be. First, there will be one highly satisfactory part of the scheme so far as the complainant is concerned. No longer will he be able to believe that the police are judges in their own cause. The fact is that where a deputy chief constable—because he is the officer in a particular force who makes a decision of this kind—decides not to proceed, the matter will he reviewed by at least one member of the Board, and there is that degree of certainty that somebody outside the Police Service will he seeing the papers on the case. That is an important safeguard so far as

791
any well-intentioned complainant is concerned. I think we all recognise that there are quite a large number of not particularly well-intentioned complainants, but what we are concerned about here is the man of good will who believes that he has been unjustly treated. We want to give him reassurance on this point, and some guarantee that his complaint will be most seriously considered both within the Police Service—as in the overwhelming majority of cases is the position today—and by an independent member of the Board.
Secondly, he will have a further guarantee that where the deputy chief constable takes the view that disciplinary charges should be preferred, and a case is contested, the Board will consider whether there are such exceptional features in the case that there should be a tribunal consisting of the chief constable of the force concerned and two independent members of the Board. But I repeat—and this is a point which I made earlier—that if the tribunal decides that the officer complained of is guilty, though that will be decided by the three members of the tribunal, the only person who will make any determination of punishment is the chief constable, who will make the decision on his own, though taking account of any views expressed to him by the two members of the tribunal who sit with him.
On this Amendment I hope to satisfy the noble Viscount. I do not attempt to summarise his argument because he has put it very clearly this afternoon. Where a complainant makes a request that there should be a tribunal, it is certainly better that this should be drawn to the attention of the Board. Many complainants may well want to have a tribunal, but I must emphasise that, in our view, a tribunal will sit in only a minority of cases where there are special features which justify that. I do not believe it is necessary to put this in the Bill. Certainly, if the complainant makes a request, it is not unreasonable that the Board's attention should be drawn to it; but we believe that the best way of dealing with this matter is by administrative guidance and that is what we hope to persuade the Committee to agree to.
Lord GARDINER: I hope that before the next stage of the Bill the Government may give further consideration to what the
792
noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said. It is a very extraordinary feature of this Bill that, being designed to create a greater feeling of fairness among those who have complaints to make against the police, the complainant does not really appear in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Harris said on Second Reading that he will be able to complain directly to the Complaints Board, but the Bill does not say so. There is no legal right in the Bill to do this. But, as my noble friend quite rightly said, you cannot stop anybody from writing a letter and therefore there is nothing in the Bill to stop him.
It seems to me curious that the whole object of the Bill is to create a greater feeling among the public that they will obtain greater fairness it' they make a complaint against the police, but it does not start out by saying, " If in future you have a complaint to make against the police, there will be a Police Complaints Board and that is the place to which to make it." Indeed, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, and as I understand the position, the Board do not really come into the picture at all until the police have carried out their investigation.
An Amendment that I have put down, which will be dealt with at a later stage, goes rather further than this. However, what so many of us, particularly Justice, are concerned about is the small number of cases where a man is not just making any old complaint against the police; he is complaining of their misconduct of proceedings against him, as a result of which he, an innocent man, has been convicted; he is going to appeal; and he is hoping that if there is a police inquiry it will establish facts which will be available to the appeal court and which may lead that court to say that the conviction is not safe or satisfactory. If I have understood it rightly, under the Bill as drafted, nothing reaches the Board until the investigation has taken place, and that is a long time ahead.
Many of us had hoped that all the complaints would go to the Board. From what my noble friend said at Second Reading, I gathered that that would happen if all complainants sent their complaints to the Board. If the Board then go through them, they may be able to spot these cases. However,

793
I think I am right in saying—I said it at Second Reading and it was not challenged—that at the moment the complainant is referred to in the Bill only in a provision which deals with what the effect on the policeman will be if the complainant withdraws the complaint. Although my noble friend assured us that if there was a hearing or tribunal the complainant would appear, I have not seen any specific provision in the Bill that gives the complainant any legal right to appear. May I respectfully suggest to the Government that there is a great deal in the contention of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that it is not really made plain anywhere what the complainant's rights are going to be. Although I do not know what course the noble Viscount will take, I hope that the Government will give further consideration to the points which have been made.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: When Statements are about to be made I am always very nervous that I am taking up the Box when somebody else wants it, but perhaps I may respond to what has been said. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for his support. Perhaps I may refrain from embarking upon the somewhat specialised case of the noble and learned Lord's new clause in this context; I should prefer to deal with the matter more generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that at least any complainant can be satisfied that now the police will not be judge in their own cause; but this is exactly what I am afraid they will not be satisfied about unless we have a little more information than has so far been divulged to this Committee. As I understand it, apart from two cases—one where there is a criminal prosecution, in which case the courts will deal with it in public and everybody will know exactly where they are, and the other where there is an exceptional disciplinary tribunal under Clause 4 of the Bill—the matter will never emerge into the light of day. Whether the Board have taken any significant part in the proceedings, or whether they have merely had the papers sitting on their table and done absolutely nothing about the matter, will, in the vast majority of cases of disciplinary hearings, never be clear to anybody. Although it is perfectly true that the Bill implies that a member of
794
the Board shall see the papers, he does not do anything about it; in the vast majority of disciplinary cases it is the police who do something about it. I am not complaining about this; it is probably right that it should be so. But how does the complainant know that the independent element has taken part in the process? This is why I want to have a little more information from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about how complainants are to set about approaching the Board.
Could the noble Lord tell us this. Apart from, if I may be forgiven for saying so, the somewhat throw-away approach that the noble Lord adopted at Second Reading, when he suggested that of course anybody could write to anybody, will it be welcomed if complainants write to the Board, in addition to making complaints to the police? Will it help the Board and give them extra material to go on if they have the complainant's own view ? If not, what is to be the channel of communication ? Will there automatically be a full reporting by the police of the complaint—verbatim if it is made orally'? Or if it is made in writing will the complaint go through untouched, a complete copy of it being sent to the Board ? How will the Board deal with the ordinary run of disciplinary cases so that the complainant may know that somebody other than the police force concerned has taken a part in it, even if not a formal or decisive part? This is what I should like to know. If the noble Lord could say a little more about it, I should be much more content.
3.46 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount asked me in particular whether we should welcome an individual citizen going direct to the Board. So far as we are concerned, the position is that we are wholly content that individual citizens should go either to the Board or to the local police station, which is where they go at the moment. We wish to give to complainants considerable confidence in the new system. It was argued in another place and by my noble and learned friend in this House on Second Reading that there are some complainants who would prefer not to go to a police station. In that case they can go to the Board. Their rights will be made

795
perfectly clear in the publicity material which will be made available when this Bill reaches the Statute Book.
However, the fundamental question is: who is going to investigate the complaint? The answer is that whoever receives it in the first instance, be it the local police station or the Board, the investigation must be carried out by the police force itself. Suggestions were made in another place that there should be some form of second police force. In my view, this is not a very sensible idea. In fact, I rather understate the argument. The only people with the expertise to investigate a complaint are the police and it is right that they should do so.
My noble and learned friend raised the question this afternoon which he asked at Second Reading, when in reply I pointed out that in the Bill there is a requirement that the Complaints Board should pass on to the police complaints which are made to them by members of the public. Clearly, if the Board receive a complaint there must be a requirement on the Board to pass it on for investigation, and that will be done. However, the noble Viscount's Amendment raises a different issue, which is by no means an unimportant one: if a citizen who has made a complaint against the police says, " I want this complaint to be investigated by a tribunal " should that request be passed on to the Board? What I have said to the noble Viscount will, I hope, reassure him. My noble and learned friend raised rather wider issues. However, in terms of the noble Viscount's Amendment, what I have said is that we shall gladly deal with this matter, which is not an unimportant one in any way. However, we think that it is better to deal with it by an administrative process rather than by putting it in the language of the Bill. We have no intention of making the position other than clear and we shall certainly direct our energies towards making sure that it is clear.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think that this is a good deal better an answer than the noble Lord gave us at Second Reading. I am not being hostile, but the noble Lord's answer is fuller and I hope that it will be more reassuring. The publicity that is to accompany this Bill will, I suppose, be distributed to local law centres, citizens' advice bureaux and
796
so on. It is clear from the speech which the noble Lord made that it is no use having the publicity available only at the police station. There is a case for providing a most careful description of how the system is going to work. With the greatest respect, I do not think that it ought to produce one single sentence which will be wholly incomprehensible to anybody. Indeed, it would be much better if the description were written by somebody else.
I am not criticising the draftsmanship of this measure, but it is not one which is guaranteed to bring great enlightenment to the ordinary citizen who wishes to pursue a complaint against the police. That is an important matter that the noble Lord has made clear and I shall look forward to seeing implemented in the publicity material that eventually comes forward the promise that he has made, that people may indeed make their proposition to the Board if there is something special about their case, even if, in the end, the Board may in some cases not agree with them. On that basis I am happy to leave it for the moment, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume, in order that my noble friend Lord Jacques may repeat the Statement that is being made in another place.
House resumed.

THE ATTACK ON INFLATION
3.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I propose to repeat a Statement which is being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The Statement is as follows :
" My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has today laid before the House a White Paper which sets out the Government's general strategy for the second year of the attack on inflation. The White Paper reflects the Government's recent agreement with the Trades Union Congress

797
on a further period of strict voluntary pay restraint for the 12 months from 1st August. The details were announced by my right honourable friend in the House on 5th May; and the agreement has since been approved by an overwhelming majority at the TUC Special Congress on 16th June. There will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper fully in the House next week.
" The White Paper stresses the importance of building up British industry. It goes on to explain that certain changes in the Price Code are essential.
" I have today laid before the House a Consultative Document setting out in detail the Price Code modifications which the Government propose.
" I have already consulted widely on both sides of industry about the modifications proposed to the Code. There is general agreement that the overriding objective to be borne in mind should be to encourage new investment, higher output and more jobs. It is common ground that if firms are to raise the funds they need to favour high investment and output, some changes in the existing Price Code are necessary. It is with that objective in mind that the Government have formulated the prices package.
" The new Code will continue to be based upon the control of proposed price increases, and upon the control of the profit margins of enterprises. The Government have been pressed to abandon these controls, but have refused to do so.
" The main changes are:

a) an increase from 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. in the rate of investment relief;

(b) new provisions relating to the depreciation of assets and to the appreciation of stocks, which go some way to offset the damaging effects of inflation ;

(c) a redefinition of the categories into which firms fall, so as to take account of inflation;

798

(d) measures to moderate the present disincentive effect of the Code on saving costs and increasing output, including the abolition of the productivity deduction, which has little impact now owing to pay restraint; and

(e) other measures to reduce the administrative burden on companies operating the Code.

" I have asked the Price Commission to monitor carefully the reliefs in respect of investment, depreciation and stocks to ensure that they are not abused. Price Commission monitoring ensures that investment relief applies only to investment in domestic manufacturing and service industry and in distribution, not to property and overseas investment.
" The Code will affect different firms in different ways. Which changes in the Code are used depends on each firm's pricing and marketing situation. Allowing for the slow recovery of the domestic market which makes it difficult and in some cases impossible to increase prices even when such increases are allowed by the Code, the Government estimate that the effect of the proposed changes will be to add about 1 per cent. to the Retail Price Index over the coming 12 months.
" I am inviting the interests concerned to make their comments on the proposals by 16th July.
" Two orders have today been laid before the House in draft. That laid by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer extends until 31st July 1977 the operation of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 and of certain sections of Part II of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. That laid by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment adds the new counter-inflation White Paper to Cmnd. 6151 for the purposes of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. When the former order has been affirmed in both Houses and made by the Privy Council, and after the completion of my consultations on the Price Code, I will lay before the House an Order made under the Counter-Inflation Act and containing the new Code, effective from 1st August."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, all Members of this House will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. I think there is another thing which we should welcome and that is the slight evidence that the Government are at least beginning to understand the nature of the problem facing us in this field, but it is most alarming that they still do not appear to have any grasp of the size of the problem. The measures summarised in the Statement seem to us to be inadequate in the extreme to deal with the task which is laid upon the Government. Would the noble Lord not agree that the real return on investment last year was 2.2 per cent., which was only one-fifth of the return ten years ago; and will he tell us what he supposes the real return on investment will be this year as a result of his new policy? Would he agree that the real return figure which I have quoted is a gross return from which tax and interest charges both have to be removed before the position of a company is actually made clear? And will he not therefore agree that last year very many firms in fact operated at an actual loss under the policy upon which this is supposed to be an improvement, although this was sometimes hidden by the effects of inflation upon stock values ?
Of course we welcome the trade unions' promise of a co-operative approach in this field, and although perhaps anything less would be regarded as irresponsible, we welcome what is a genuine attempt to meet the problems which we in this nation share. But it would be interesting to know whether it was necessary to promise any reduction in the cuts in public expenditure planned in order to secure this co-operation, and whether indeed the Government are aware of the extent to which living standards may be expected to fall as a result. We should also like to know whether this policy leaves us on target to get inflation down in 1977 to the level of our international competitors, as has been announced by the Government. If not, will there be a new policy to succeed this one, and, if so, when ?
It seems to us that the results of this modest change in policy will themselves be modest. It must be apparent to all your Lordships, and to almost everybody outside this House, that a company needs
800
to have money not merely to buy raw materials, pay wages and so on, but also for two other vital needs: one is to create a reserve so that they do not have to lay off workers at the first draught of a bad balance sheet, and the other is that they may install new machinery so that they may keep the present workforce and, hopefully, expand it in the future. We are speaking about jobs, not just profits.
Finally, one other comment one must make at this stage is that to work the code was complex before, but it is now a great deal more complex. There are loud cries of alarm from industry at the cost, frustration and near impossibility of operating parts of it accurately. The picture one has is of a Government waving us forward to the dawn, not realising that on our backs we have a knapsack with diminishing supplies and that we are wading through paper up to our armpits to get there. If the Government would allow a more generous term for profits to allow more investment and more jobs to be created—if they would make it easier for industry to do this, and to co-operate willingly—we should be very pleased.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, from these Benches we too would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We give a somewhat tepid welcome, but still a welcome, to the changes that are envisaged in the Statement. It is certainly a good thing that some flexibility is allowed to people who are trying to make a success of industry and, by so doing, to counter inflation. At the same time, in our view it does not go far enough. Some of the clauses are interesting in themselves as a comment on the effect that previous Government policy has had.
For instance, it is remarkable that the Government now admit the disincentive effect of their existing policies on saving costs and increasing output. Surely, any policy over recent years should have been aimed at saving costs and increasing output if we are attempting to make a success of the running of the economy. The object given at the heading of the Statement is, after all, The Attack on Inflation. Surely it is time that we recognised that we will not attack inflation unless we have a successful industry able to invest. A successful

801
industry able to invest requires a far higher level of profit than the Government have been prepared to permit up till now. Indeed, we are up against the long-established prejudice against the whole idea of profit, and the misconception of what profit is all about. This bedevils economic development at the present time. Therefore, we should have liked to see a more generous approach towards profit than is reflected in this Statement.
My Lords, I should also like to raise the issue that control over prices and profits is an inevitable concomitant of any attempt to control pay. It seems to be an article of faith that these two propositions must go hand in hand. In our view, they are not so related. Least of all is there a relationship between a voluntary pay policy and a statutory profit and prices policy. Until it is recognised that what is necessary in regard to profits, and therefore to prices, is a different kind of approach from what is necessary with regard to pay, I do not think that the Government's intention of an attack on inflation is likely to be successful.
4.5 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their reception of this Statement, despite some of the things they have said. I find it difficult sometimes to guess which of the two alternative arguments the Opposition will use. They have two arguments. One has been that the Price Code is completely ineffective, that prices are now determined by the market, and that the Price Code as a piece of apparatus is a waste of public money. An alternative argument is that they think that the Price Code is far too severe. I suppose, in practice, there is a little of both. Of course there are many cases where, because of market conditions, profits are well below the ceilings permitted by the Code; but there are other cases where the Code rather than the market has kept prices in check. There is a mixture.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the provisions are inadequate. May I point out that when this Code was introduced by the last Government there was no provision at all for investment. We have gradually built up the provision, until now we propose that it be 35 per cent. of the investment. Since November 1974,
802
almost £600 million has been allowed in the Price Code for investment allowances.
I can confirm the profitability figure used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. A figure of 2.2 per cent. is being spoken of at the present time, as against 10 per cent. a few years ago. But that 2.2 per cent. must be qualified ; it is 2.2 per cent. after allowing for the replacement of assets at their current value, not at historic value.
I think that without that qualification the figure is meaningless. One must add that qualification. The noble Lord said that that was before tax and interest. It is fair to say that it is before tax. If the profit has been properly calculated there should be very little tax. However, I do not think it is right to say that it is before interest. Interest on money which is borrowed, up to the present time anyway, has been allowed in the ascertainment of prices.
It is also suggested that the new Code is more complex. In some ways I think that that is so, but in other ways we have simplified it. We have certainly reduced the burden of work. For example, in cases where the price of a commodity will be increased by no more than 2 per cent, over a period of a year, there is no need for any notification at all. That is something new, and rids firms of the need to make applications for relatively small increases in prices.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I would say that the Code was not wholly causing a disincentive in regard to saving costs. It was not wholly causing a disincentive for increasing output. It was marginally doing that. We are seeking to eliminate the marginal points where the Code was doing that, which is something quite different from what was implied in the remarks of the noble Baroness. She said that she did not think that the control of wages and similar income must go hand in hand with the control of profits. I would suggest to the noble Baroness that in a democracy politics is the art of the possible. It is quite impracticable to get working people to agree to the kind of wage control to which they have agreed unless the Government show—and no matter what Party is in office they would have to show this—that some steps are being taken to restrict price increases and restrain profits.

803
It would be quite impossible to do all this—
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed a recent study which shows a high percentage of understanding on the factory floor of the need for profits?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there is an understanding of the need for profits; particularly the need for profits to invest in British industry. That is why we have increased the investment allowance to 35 per cent. We are encouraging profits to be made for the purpose for which we think they ought to be made in the present circumstances.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that, however generously one views the Statement he has just made, it does not remove one of the shackles hampering industry in making the profits to bring about investment of the kind that the noble Lord wants? It may be loosening one or two of the shackles, but only slightly. Not one has actually been removed. Is the noble Lord aware that what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said reflects the view of people who really understand business, that the only way to increase wage levels and make things better for the wage-earner is to remove these shackles? This is the only way in which to produce the profits that we want. I urge the noble Lord the Minister to use whatever influence he has, even at this late stage, to see whether one or two of the shackles relating to price control can be removed, rather than just loosened.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the observations that come from Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the Conservative Party, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on behalf of the Liberal Party, seem to be based on one specific object, and that is profits? The people who arc responsible and who are to blame for what has happened in this country in regard to inflation are the people in charge of industry here. I am not saying in this Chamber something that I have not said to some of the top industrialists in the country. Those who are responsible for industry in this country have not taken the interest; they have not even put into operation certain schemes
804
whereby profits would occur. Because of their lack of interest they depend upon No. 1 and No. 2 down the ladder to report back to the managing director of a company as to what is really happening on the floor.
I should like to see some of these top industrialists controlled. I should like to see that happen in my lifetime. I should like there to be introduced and carried into effect Acts of Parliament based on the principle that operates inside the mining industry, where the manager of a coal mine must at least go down below to see for himself what is happening in the various seams of operation, where production is taking place. This Statement from my noble friend, which has been read in another place, and the action of Her Majesty's Government—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord SLATER: When some of you people begin to understand and learn what manners are, the better for yourselves! Noble Lords are now trying to interrupt an old Parliamentarian who knows more about these things than some noble Lords opposite have ever known, or ever will know. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will take back my observations in regard to what I should like to see; that is Acts of Parliament being introduced to control these people. They are talking down Her Majesty's Government because of the action they are taking against inflation. Then we shall see the progress that the people of this country want to see. The situation is most serious, more serious than some noble Peers on that side of the House think. They can only see one thing, and that is profit for the owner of an industrial undertaking.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, perhaps I may make one observation on the remarks just made. Since the year 1970, which covers two kinds of Government, the value of money in this country has, roughly speaking, slightly more than halved. Would the noble Lord who has just sat down suggest that that is the fault of management ?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid at this point I ought perhaps to remind your

805
Lordships that it is not really correct for noble Lords to address other noble Lords personally. It is the correct thing to address the noble Lord who has made the Statement. I think I may be taking the right feeling of the House if I say that we ought perhaps now to resume our deliberations on the Police Bill.

POLICE BILL
4.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Viscount MONCK Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 30, after (" above ") insert (" chief ").
The noble Viscount said: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will accept this as a purely technical drafting Amendment. As the subsection stands now, it puts chief superintendents in the same category as chief constables or assistant chief constables, whereas they are in fact amenable to the ordinary discipline of the police, as are superintendents. Therefore, I submit that this should read:
" where the complaint is against an officer holding a rank above chief superintendent ".
I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount is quite right ; this is to some extent a drafting point, but not for that reason to he disregarded. Let me reassure him straight away that the paragraph is not in any way intended to exclude chief superintendents from the scheme. We cannot, unhappily, refer specifically to a rank above chief superintendent, as this Amendment proposes, because the rank of chief superintendent is not a statutory rank. The statutory ranks, I am sure the Committee will be intrigued to hear, are superintendent, inspector, sergeant and constable, and they are specifically laid down in the 1964 Police Act.
To understand why chief superintendents are not excluded from this scheme, I think Clause 2(2)(c) must be taken as a whole. The first part of the paragraph, referring to an officer holding a rank above superintendent, has to be read in conjunction with the second part, which refers to the procedures for disciplinary matters in relation to the senior ranks in
806
question. It is only in respect of officers of chief officer rank that disciplinary charges are drawn up by a solicitor and heard by a person selected from a list of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor. Those ranks are assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable. In other words, the point which the noble Viscount raises is in fact included in the Bill as drafted, and the only reason why it is drafted in this rather curious fashion is because of the point I made earlier, that the rank of chief superintendent is not a statutory rank. But they are in fact covered by the scheme.
Viscount MONCK: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his usual courteous reply. It seems very curious. I shall ring up my friend the chief superintendent at Basingstoke tonight and tell him that he is bogus. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers of Board as to disciplinary charges]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill ?
4.20 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I do not think we ought to allow Clause 3 to go by without any comment, and I would be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if he could answer one question about how it is going to work, or, in particular, how subsections (2) and (3) are going to work. One of the main independent functions of the Board is to intervene, because they have seen the papers, in a disciplinary case where the deputy chief constable has provisionally decided that he does not want to bring a disciplinary charge. Under this provision in Clause 3, the member of the Board who is in charge of that particular complaint will be able to ask the deputy chief constable to have another look at this, because that member, bringing to bear his independent outside judgment, thinks that the case is perhaps rather more serious or more substantial than has so far appeared to the deputy chief constable. He will then be able to request the deputy chief constable to have another look and bring a disciplinary charge. If the deputy chief

807
constable refuses, the Board can require that this shall be done. It is at this stage that I believe a word of explanation would be welcome.
One would think from reading the Bill—I am sure it is not the case, but it looks like it—that the practical result of this is likely to he nugatory. After all, the member of the Board who has insisted that the disciplinary charge should be brought is in no way further concerned with it under these proceedings; it goes back and is dealt with entirely under the Police Act machinery and under the police discipline regulations. I should have thought that if you had got to a situation where you had reached loggerheads as between the member of the Board and the deputy chief constable and the latter was then required to bring disciplinary charges, his heart would not be in them, and he would go through some charade and nothing would be achieved. I know that more than one person can be involved in this; there is the chief constable as well. I suppose it is also conceivable, because I believe this can be done under the Police Act (I have forgotten the section), that the chief constable can ask another chief constable from a different force to deal with the disciplinary hearing.
Therefore, I wonder whether that is really what is intended under this provision. If it is not, I cannot help thinking that we are again tending to set up something which suggests that it is an independent authority who will be able to take a real part in seeing that justice is really done, but in fact it will only be able to produce something which is a very superficial and rather unsatisfactory result. If the noble Lord can tell me how this is proposed to work, then I should be grateful and I believe again it would go some way to reinforcing what we are all trying to set forth, which is that there will be a real change under this Bill and people will get protection that they do not have at the moment, albeit that they do not usually need it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. He raises an important question, and that is where there is a disagreement between the Board and the deputy chief constable. There is an important qualification here. The words " chief officer of police " very often
808
appear whereas we are talking almost invariably about deputy chief constables in police forces. A decision whether to prefer a disciplinary charge is taken by the deputy chief constable. This is the situation at the moment, and the case is tried by the chief constable, though in fact, in the language of the Statute, the term " chief officer tends to be used whereas in fact it includes both of these officers.
The noble Viscount raises the question of what would be the procedure, and perhaps I can just sketch this in. When the Board took the view that the deputy chief constable was wrong in deciding not to prefer disciplinary charges there would, in my view, almost clearly be some informal contacts, or perhaps more than informal contacts between the Board and the deputy chief constable. They would say, " We have read the papers and frankly we think that there is a prima facie case under the police disciplinary regulations in this particular case ". It may well be that as a result of that the deputy chief constable formed a different view. But what we are talking about here is the reserve power which the Board has. The deputy chief constable is adamant, and so are the Board; they simply disagree. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me that we are talking about a very minute number of cases, and hopefully a non-existent number of cases. But be that as it may, it is right to consider what would happen in a situation of that sort.
If the Board directed that disciplinary charges should be brought, the case would not be taken by the chief constable sitting on his own; it would be taken by a tribunal. If the chief constable took the view that he was fatally disqualified, or should disqualify himself from presiding at that tribunal for any special reasons, he could ask a chief officer of another force to preside at that particular hearing, and he might choose to do so. But it would really be a matter for him. I think that is reasonable. I think that is the fair way of doing it.
In most tribunals when they take place, I am quite sure that the chief officer of the force concerned would preside, but in certain cases he might choose not to do so. Indeed, as I have indicated, this is the situation at the moment. Every now and again the chief constable trying a case under the disciplinary regulations comes to the

809
conclusion that he arguably knows so much about a particular officer, or chain of circumstances, that it would be wrong for him to preside and to try the officer who is being confronted with the charges. In a situation of that sort it is not unknown for him to ask another chief constable to preside, and that would continue to be the situation.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am very much obliged. I think that is clear, and it seems to me to be entirely satisfactory. Again I do not believe that without tremendous researches in Standing Committee in another place it would necessarily be very easy for a member of the public to lay his hands on that information, and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Disciplinary tribunals]:
4.27 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—

(" (ii) one member of the Police Complaints Board nominated by the Board, being a member who was not concerned with the case under section 3 above; and

(iii) one member of the police authority for the police area concerned nominated by that authority; and ").

The noble Viscount said: We now come to the disciplinary tribunals, and we have already discovered that they are going to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to disciplinary charges against the police. Of course, I would remind the Committee that they have no place whatever where there are criminal proceedings in the ordinary courts against any policeman for something that has arisen out of the complaint. In all the attempts that have been made to find a proper formula whereby the many and disparate interests who have wished to put in their representations on this matter shall be satisfied, I think here we have got one of the areas where there is the greatest degree of dissatisfaction, at any rate in some quarters.
I believe that the functioning of these tribunals is of especial concern to the police, and not least do the police think—
810
or some of the police—that it would be a mistake that anyone other than the chief officer should actually take part in the full sense at the hearing. The clause, as it is drafted, provides for a tribunal with the chief officer in the chair but with two members of the Board as full members for the purposes of the hearing—that is to say, the determination whether the policeman against whom the complaint is made is, or is not, guilty of the disciplinary charge made against him. It is not the function of the two members of the Board to sentence him ; that is done by the chief officer under Clause 4(1)(b)—though he does consult the other two members of the tribunal first he remains firmly in charge of the punishment of any member of his force. That is the solution that at the moment has been suggested.
I wonder whether there are not other ideas—I am afraid I do not think that I can claim any novelty value in this Amendment, or indeed in Amendment No. 7 which follows—that would be worth canvassing once more, and canvassing in a way that I think is novel in that it has not been put in this particular fashion anywhere in another place. I think that the police authorities have the feeling that they are not sufficiently participating in the independent element, or in the procedure of the Board. The first suggestion that I have put forward is that one of the two persons who will assist, and indeed take part in the disciplinary hearing—at the moment both of them are members of the Board—should instead be a member of the police authority.
The Committee will know that the police authority is not just the councillors of the area concerned ; it is a joint committee made up of two-thirds of councillors and one-third of magistrates who are appointed by the courts in the area. Therefore we are not necessarily just talking about councillors, although I would not have any objection to doing that; it is a slightly broader based authority than simply an ordinary local authority.
It seems to me that if a member of the authority were to sit on the disciplinary tribunal there would be a number of advantages. It would give a special insight when—as they are in law, under Section 50 of the Police Act, bound to do—looking into the whole question of

811
complaints and what becomes of them. I appreciate that it would not be possible for a member of any particular authority necessarily to participate—it might be wrong that he should—in the investigation of a complaint before a tribunal against a policeman from his authority's area. Nevertheless, as a generality, the inclusion of a member of a police authority on a board would enable him better to understand the process and how it is being carried out and would, I suggest, assist the fulfilment of the functions under Section 50.
I suggest also that it would have a restricting effect on too great an interference by the members of the Board—who, after all, are sent there for the sake of their independence and for the sake of their being seen to be independent—in overruling the chief officer, because the other difficulty about the tribunal is that under Clause 4(3) it can come to a majority decision as to guilt or innocence. Perhaps this, above all, is worrying chief officers and I suggest that we may have a system here by which we could bring about a compromise.
If the Committee considers not only my Amendment No. 6 but also my Amendment No. 7 with it, we have this situation: there must he a majority decision, which means that no one of the three elements I am suggesting should be on the Board could be overridden or could override in conjunction with anybody else; the chief officer could not be overruled by a majority of the other two. By the same token, nobody could gang up with the chief officer to produce a result which was not agreed with by, for example, one of the independent members of the Board. Thus, some balance is possible if the two are taken together.
To stray for a moment further on to Amendment No. 7, because it is relevant here, supposing that one has a situation like this where it is impossible for two people to overrule the third on one of these Boards, because one must have a unanimous decision ? The obvious question is: what happens then ? What happens then is what happens in a criminal trail. There must be another tribunal and, if there must be more than two tribunals, then what usually
812
happens in a criminal trial is that the matter is dropped, because if one cannot get a sensible verdict out of two different juries—even in that case, with a majority of 10 to 2—it is usually thought in practice that it is better not to go on with the matter at all. I therefore suggest to the Committee—and I do so with great hesitation because I know that this is a very difficult field—that those who are interested in trying to get a balance, and the greatest degree of agreement between all the somewhat disagreeing organisations which have been involved with the Bill, might like to look once more at this suggestion.
The history of my Amendment No. 6 is that it was put forward in another place where the honourable lady the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said she would look at it. It was then put down and discussed rather briefly on Report; the other place were going rather faster at that stage. I am not sure that the matter has been entirely explored as yet and I have a feeling that your Lordships might like to consider it. That is the background to the suggestion, which I do not suppose will please everyone. Nothing in the Bill pleases everyone, but my suggestion is put forward as a genuine attempt to be helpful and to bring a ray of light and agreement into the situation. I hope that other noble Lords may feel moved to take part in this discussion.
Viscount AMORY: I support the proposal in Amendment No. 6 which my noble friend has moved so effectively. The police authorities feel that the Bill diminishes in some way their responsibilities. They are probably correct in that, although I do not think that that was the declared intention of the Bill. I think, therefore, that what my noble friend has suggested is a good plan, not only because that is their feeling and because they would welcome coming more into the complaints procedure than is at present proposed in the Bill, but even more because I think they would be useful members of a tribunal like this.
I was glad that my noble friend reminded your Lordships of the joint nature of these authorities, because it is sometimes thought that because chief constables are often forceful personalities and very decisive types, the police authorities are rather subservient to them. That

813
may be so in individual cases, but in general I do not think it is so. The police authorities understand their statutory position very well and, on the whole, carry it out very satisfactorily. I should have thought that having one member of these tribunals as a layman, or a layman who has an understanding of how the police service works and how the system generally works, would make the tribunals more rather than less effective. I hope therefore that the Minister will take a sympathetic view of the aim of my noble friend in putting forward Amendment No. 6.
Lord WIGG: I do not pretend to have any special knowledge of the discipline of the police force, though in another field I have seen the effects of weak discipline and weak authority and I know that any signs of removing powers from where responsibility seems to lie always leads to trouble. I would never do anything to weaken the authority of chief constables. They are appointed and if they are to do their job they must enjoy the confidence of the force they command and the confidence of the public, and the responsibility which they bear must be equalled by the powers which they possess. If therefore the Government's proposals are brought into operation, the authority of chief constables will be diminished ; the mere putting on the board of another couple of chaps as assessors is a sign either that the Government do not accept—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: May I interrupt the noble Lord to remind him that it goes further than that? They are not just assessors, but full judges as to guilt or innocence.
Lord WIGG: I stand corrected; my error was due to my loose use of English. They are two chaps, outside the authority vested in the chief constable, who are put on to the tribunal as full members. That the Government are doing this will be seen as meaning that they believe, or have been pressured into accepting the view, that the authority of the chief constable needs in some way to be corrected. I take exactly the opposite view. I would much sooner serve in a regiment in which, as a private soldier, I got 28 days for something I did not do, in spite of the honest belief of the chap who gave it to
814
me, than I would serve in a unit in which there was a lot of shilly-shallying and so on.
If I may put it in a personal way, which may commend itself to some Members of the Committee who were in the House of Commons with me, I always thought that the best Speaker I ever met was the first one I met, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, later Lord Ruffside. I always thought of him in terms of what he would have been like as a C.O. I felt that, as a Speaker, he sometimes made mistakes in the same way as, as a C.O., he would have made mistakes, but he always sought to be fair. Sometimes he would live up to his name and be rough, but fairness was his second name. That is exactly the basis of good, firm discipline, because those who are tempted to try it on are less likely to do so if they know that they will be met with absolute fairness and that the other chap knows as much as they do about all the tricks. This is the administration of discipline inside a force, which, by its very nature, must have effective discipline.
For that reason, though I am not necessarily committed to these words because I do not know enough about the matter, if the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, divides the Committee, he will take me into the Lobby with him, because I believe that this is indicative of the age in which we live. It is another example of leaving the responsibility where it must remain, whatever happens. We are weakening the power and authority of he who bears the ultimate responsibility to carry the provision into effect.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that, if the noble Viscount were to divide the Committee, he might well go with the noble Viscount into the Lobby, but that I am afraid that he would not do so for the reasons he appears to imagine? What the noble Viscount is saying is that, where a tribunal sits and there are two lay members, one should be a member of a police authority. He is not saying that there should not he two independent members. What I shall address myself to is the question of whether it is right that one of those two non-police representatives on the tribunal should be a member of a police authority. As I understood it, the noble Viscount was speaking to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 at the same time.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Not really. I was saying that, if it wanted to, the Committee could take account of the provisions of Amendment No. 7 because it has a bearing upon this question.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In that case, I shall gladly deal with Amendment No. 7 separately. Let me begin with a cautionary note, which will not surprise the noble Viscount because I know that he has gone through the report of the Committee stage in another place with his customary assiduity. One of the problems of this measure is that there are all sorts of alternative schemes and that it is very difficult to assemble a substantial number of people behind any scheme. A problem so far as the present Amendment is concerned is that, though it will carry with it the plaudits of the police authorities—and it certainly will—it will not carry with it those of the police organisations. The one thing which has been absolutely consistent so far as the police organisations are concerned as regards all the various alternative proposals which have been put forward, is that very nearly all the police organisations—and I speak with caution because I have not consulted all of them about the noble Viscount's Amendment and am speaking only about their general philosophical position so far as the Bill is concerned—have displayed strong opposition to involving police authorities in the working of this scheme.
This is for a good reason. It is the view not only of the Federation but of a very large number of chief constables also. They are very apprehensive about involving police authorities in the detailed case of an individual disciplinary hearing. The noble Viscount referred to Section 50 of the 1964 Act, which sets out the powers of a police authority in dealing with this question. It is right to come back to that because it is a fundamental question. I had the opportunity of meeting the police authorities on this point. We have done the best we can to reassure them that they are in no way being undercut. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, raised this point. In no way is their position reduced by the Bill. However, the one thing that we take a very clear view about is that we should not use the present Bill to expand substantially the powers of police authorities so far as an individual disciplinary case is concerned.
816
The issue is really as follows: at the moment, it is a matter of long standing that police authorities have no powers to intervene in an individual discipline case, apart from the case of senior officers which we were talking about earlier when the noble Viscount had put down an Amendment concerning Chief Superintendents. This is of very long standing. It was stated by the Desborough Committee as long ago as 1919, confirmed by the Oaksey Committee in 1949 and, more recently, by the Royal Commission in 1962. All have taken the view that members of a police authority should not become involved in individual discipline cases. Under the Amendment, however, a member or members of the police authority would do so.
So that it is absolutely clear in the minds of the Committee, I feel that I must say that, in so far as there is a police consensus view, it would be strongly opposed to getting police authorities involved in detailed disciplinary cases. There is also a second issue; namely, that certain people might say, " Well, that is all very well ; you say that the police are not very enthusiastic about it, but there is a wider public interest involved. Is not the Amendment justified so far as that is concerned '?" I believe that the answer is, No, it is not. The whole purpose of the Bill is to introduce an independent element into the complaints machinery. I do not believe that an individual complainant would take the view that a member of a police authority was wholly independent. He would know that he had regular contacts— and quite properly so—as a member of a police authority with the chief constable, and that he was a member of an authority which had a statutory responsibility for providing a police force. So I do not believe that the complainant would take the view that the member of the police authority sitting on the tribunal was as independent a person as he would expect to find. It seems to me that this is a very strong argument against the proposal of the noble Viscount.
As I have indicated, I believe that—and I do not want to overstate the argument—in so far as there is a police attitude, it is against the idea and, in so far as the position of the individual complainant is concerned I feel that there would be apprehensions in the minds of many about whether a member of a police

817
authority trying a case was genuinely independent.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, raised a number of other questions concerning the general issue of tribunals but, as I endeavoured to explain, that is rather wider than the discussion which we are having at the moment.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: There is one matter which worries me about the Amendment, and I was expecting the Minister to deal with it. That is how it would be applied to London. The police authority for London is the Home Secretary. Therefore, while the Amendment might be appropriate for authorities outside London, it would not be at all so for the Metropolitan Police.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: I have had the advantage of hearing, I believe, most of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House and the advantage of hearing your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon. I fully understand that there are many who take the view that it is undesirable to have any scheme at all, that the present proposal should not be accepted. But if there is to be a scheme, I feel very strongly that the points recently put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, should command acceptance by your Lordships.
I understand that the point of having this new Board is to allay any possible feelings in the minds of the public that there is not full, free and independent treatment brought to bear. If the Board are to be set up there are to be nine members appointed by the Prime Minister. This afternoon we had a very interesting discussion, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, as to whether the nine should be nominated by the Lord Chancellor or by the Prime Minister. But inherent in all that discussion, as I followed it, was the thought that we must have appointed nine people who are completely independent. The line taken by the noble Viscount was that the Lord Chancellor has great experience in nominating those who will have judicial capacities. The whole purpose of the setting up of the Board, as I follow it, is that there should be nine people chosen by the Prime Minister. Presumably, they will be men of experience and of standing in the community, men of good sense and
818
of fairness, but above all nine men who are judicial. Therefore, I should have thought that, once the scheme is adopted, one would take away from its advantage if, instead of having two out of the three completely independent, there is only one out of the nine and the other is somebody nominated by the police authority.
I have no doubt that from the police authority one will get someone of great experience and knowledge, who is entirely fair and of judicial approach. But would one satisfy the public? I thought that the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, dealt with the matter carried complete conviction. If one wants to create public confidence and allay such fears as there are now, surely there should be two members from the nine, not merely one. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in a very interesting intervention earlier this afternoon, developed the point that the nine appointed would gradually accumulate experience in regard to the whole country ; they would not have merely a local approach. They would gradually get more and more knowledge and perhaps be able to build up among themselves an area of experience that would be of very great advantage. I thought that what the noble Viscount said was most persuasive and most powerful. Are we to lose that under the suggestion we are now considering? I very much hope that your Lordships will take the view that if we are to have this tribunal, it is far better that the two independent members should be chosen from the nine selected by the Prime Minister.
4.57 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I am becoming more and more worried, and I am particularly worried by the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I quite agree that if there is to be a tribunal one should see the purpose of it; it is to allay public opinion. That is what it is about. But at what price ? The noble and learned Lord wants nine men, judicially minded, independently minded, wise men, good men. I might put my target at a much lower level. I want the man who is to exercise a disciplinary function to know something about the minds of those who may be subjected to temptation. I want a man, who because

819
of his life's work and his life's experience, will be able to get to the heart of the matter; a man who will not, as it were, always be weighing on the niceties of evidence. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has shared my experience of long service in the barrack room, but a commanding officer does not necessarily have to be judicially minded. What he has to know is the function of discipline; how the life of the regiment goes on; what are the temptations to which men are exposed.
Independence, goodness, and judicial mindedness are of course worthy attributes and, if they can be found, so much the better. But basically, a man who is discharging a disciplinary function has not to be only legally minded; he has to realise that he is handling circumstances that are part of the whole way of life. He has to be a man who understands temptation and who, through his life's work, can instinctively go to the heart of a problem and be able to make up his mind about what are the temptations to which the man whose case he is considering has been subjected, and what is the truth of the matter. That is what is required.
If the price of allaying public opinion is to undermine or weaken the discipline of the chief constable in relation to the operation of a police force, which affects the whole body politic, the whole social fabric from top to bottom, then I should tell the public to go and jump in the Thames. It is far better not to seek to allay public opinion if the price is not only to undermine the authority of the chief constable in the discharge of his specific duty in relation to the disciplinary function as a member of the tribunal, but also eventually to affect every act and to permeate the whole of the force which the chief constable has to operate. If one tampers, for whatever reason, with the discipline of a quasi-discipline force like the police, or the discipline of the Armed Forces, one is playing with something which one is never able to put right.
Therefore, as I said earlier, it may be that it is in accordance with the spirit of our time that in order to allay public opinion we are quite prepared to do what we are now setting out to do. But if we do it, we may wake up and find that we
820
have paid a very high price indeed for allaying public opinion.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: As the noble Lord has turned to me, I should like to add that I can quite understand his objection to the scheme altogether. But I should like to remind your Lordships that all we are discussing at the moment is whether, assuming there is to be a tribunal, it is to be presided over by the chief officer of police and with two members of the nine appointed by the Prime Minister, or whether it is to be presided over by the chief of police with one of the nine and one member of a police authority. I fully understand the noble Lord's opposition to the scheme, but we are not discussing that at the moment; we are discussing whether we have the scheme as proposed in the Bill, or the modified scheme as proposed by the noble Viscount.
Lord NUNBURNHOLME: I ;should like to agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said. It would appear to me that policemen are under two laws. One is the law of the land, by which they are under the same laws as any other citizen, and the second law is the police regulations or the police law. If they break the first law (the law of the land), they are brought before the civil courts and the Bill would not apply. If they break a police regulation, which is like an Army regulation or a law under the Army Act, they should be brought before their own kind ; and if this Bill (which has met with certain opposition from many parts of the country) goes through, I would agree wholeheartedly with Amendment No. 6, that one member of the tribunal should be a chief officer of police, one member should be from a police authority and one member should be from the Police Complaints Board. If this Amendment No. 6 were to be carried, then I think that Amendment No. 7 should not be.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I think I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, that I shall be seeking to draw upon the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, more on the next Amendment, perhaps, than on this one. Nevertheless, I am delighted to have him with me; it is not always thus.

821
If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I would hope that the Committee will get this point into perspective. The trouble about this Bill is that it puts the disciplinary tribunals in the shop window. We have already discussed earlier on this afternoon the real weight of work that is going to fall upon members of the Board in relation to disciplinary tribunals. They will not be involved in them if the charge is withdrawn or the complaint is dropped ; they will not be concerned with them if it is a criminal charge; they will not be concerned with them in at any rate more than the bare majority of disciplinary charges. It may be the fairly small minority, or the exceptional case ; I know not. The weight of work and this, I think, is the answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—will be the inspection by the members of the Board of the whole gamut of complaints.
Now there are thousands of these. They will not actually have to do anything about most of them in terms of a formal tribunal, but they will look at every one of them. Among other things, they will be looking for occasions, perhaps, on a disciplinary charge, on which they do not agree with the deputy chief constable deciding not to prefer a charge. But when one looks at the figures—and there will have to be, I think, more than nine people because some of them will be part-time—one sees that they will have a very heavy workload in going through all the cases; and that is the bulwark of independence with which I believe we should really be concerned. It is true that the disciplinary tribunal looks very much more impressive in the legislation, but consider this. It is not going to sit in public. The general public are not going to know what happened. They are not going to know, for instance, whether there was or was not a majority decision. They are not going to know, if there was a majority decision, who it was who disagreed. This is all going to be done, as I understand it, in private—and in a moment we shall come to another Amendment I have down to discuss the extent to which that is so.
What I am seeking is to try to find something which will assuage the anxieties, frankly, of the police authorities. I am not surprised that the police say that they
822
do not agree with this particular Amendment. Goodness! there are plenty of things that the police do not agree with. There are plenty of things that everybody does not agree with. That is the one thing that runs right through this Bill. No more can I invent, nor can anybody else, something that everybody agrees with. I am not in the least surprised at what the noble Lord says about this. But I do not believe that the trouble really is that they will be getting themselves involved as a police authority in the disciplinary side. They will be there as an adjunct to the other two on the comparatively rare occasions on which it will be necessary for there to be a tribunal.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. Of course my Amendment is defective, and for that reason I plainly cannot press it. But I take his point that you cannot have somebody from the police authority in London unless you have a Deputy Home Secretary, or something like that, and there is not any such thing. But suppose one takes a slightly broader view. I have drafted this Amendment in terms of a member of " the " police authority for that constable; but it might very well be that one could have a member of " a " police authority. It need not necessarily be the one concerned ; but a person who, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, said, has been for some time involved in the provision of an efficient police force as a member of a police authority and who will then have the sort of feeling within his own experience of how the thing should properly be run and what is the feel of the discipline in the force. That is all I am suggesting.
I am not going to press this Amendment. It seems to me that we have had a useful discussion about it, and there are some who are in favour of it; but I shall leave this for the moment in case there are people outside who would like further to consider the debate. There is just one last thing—and this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If it is thought that there will be complaints by members of the public that the independent element is lacking, then that is one of the reasons why I suggest that you would bring in the unanimity rule, because at least the members of the public would be able to trust, ex hypothesi, the member of the Board sitting there. If the member of the Board had a veto, as he would if there

823
was a unanimity rule, then there would be no possibility of the independent element being overridden. That, I think, is my answer to that last point. I should like to think about what everybody has said in this short debate and, if necessary, pursue it, possibly in another way and at another stage. But I am very grateful to those who have given their views on this particular Amendment, which I now beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 8, leave out (" may be a majority ") and insert (" must be a unanimous ").
The noble Viscount said: This, of course, I have touched on, and it is the question of unanimity. There is no doubt—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will be the first to appreciate this and see its significance—that under the Bill as it is now drawn the chief constable, the chairman of the disciplinary tribunal, can be overridden as to a decision on guilt or innocence; and, as I understand it, chief officers of police are frankly worried about this. I do not think there is any getting away from it. They have put forward a number of schemes, which I have looked at, in which the members of the Board perhaps do indeed sit, as the noble Lord suggested, as assessors, without being full members of the Board at all. They have put forward a number of different schemes; but the thing to which they all object, as I understand it, is that they are not absolutely in control of the discipline of their force.
I can see that there is a great deal to be said against the idea of the members of the Board who sit on the tribunal sitting other than as full members. I do not believe that if they sat other than as full members they would be doing the independent job that I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, if they are going to be there, they must do; and as assessors I do not think they can do it. But we have, have we not, two possible situations, and we have to weigh these. We have the situation where, at the present moment, the chief officer of police, the chairman,
824
can be overruled. For all his experience, and for all the position that he holds in his force—and it may very well be his own force in connection with which the disciplinary tribunal is being held—it may be that he is overruled. That would, say some, be a severe blow to discipline. That can he dealt with by this Amendment, because if there has to be unanimity then he can never be overruled; he can simply succeed in arriving at a situation where there has to be another tribunal. That is not an unusual thing. It is no use supposing that a policeman is in any different situation from any other person who is at the receiving end of a charge. Any criminal offence may result in a trial where the jury cannot reach the necessary degree of consensus and where, therefore, there has to be another trial. So there is nothing unusual in this.
I understand, of course, that there is the other side of the coin. I believe that there is also the possibility—and I must be fair to the Committee about this—that if you had unanimity it might be, for instance, that one of the members of the Board and the chief constable wished to acquit and the other member of the Board did not agree. Then, equally, you would have to have another tribunal. But are not both those situations the sort of occasion when it would be better to allow the thing to go back and be tried again by three new people rather than to put at jeopardy what I believe to be an absolutely fundamental provision of the police discipline which is the result of the present Bill as it stands? I would seriously suggest that of the balance of advantages and disadvantages, unanimity here just carries the day.
There is one last thing. It will be said possibly against this Amendment that we have got away from the unanimous decision in ordinary juries. But there are 12 people on a jury and there is much more room for disagreement and much more safety when you have to have 10 out of 12 in agreement than when you merely have to have two out of three. This is so sensitive and difficult an area that we should go back, I believe, to the old, long-tried English unanimity rule.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount has put his case with some persuasiveness, but I am bound to say that I come to a rather different

825
conclusion. Let me start by saying—and I do not want to keep hammering this point home—that I do not want to misrepresent anybody's position. I do not believe, first of all, that this would be greatly welcomed by some people in the Police Service who are worried about the present arrangements so far as tribunals are concerned. In some ways, I think, some chief officers would be more disturbed by this arrangement than by the Bill as it stands. I do not pretend to speak for all of them necessarily or any of them; but having had the benefit of hearing their views over the last two years, I think that this Amendment would cause some anxiety in their minds for one reason.
It is all very well to say that the unanimity rule would be a great help because it would at least ensure that the chief constable is not overruled by the two lay members of the tribunal, but what happens if the chief officer and one member of the tribunal are in favour of conviction and they are then faced with a veto by the third member of the tribunal? There could then be, as I understand it from the noble Viscount's proposal, a rehearing. I do not know whether the same chief officer of police would sit to judge the man himself or whether presumably he would have to ask a brother chief officer to come and sit. Then the case is reheard and the chief officer and another member of the tribunal say that the man should be convicted and the third member says he should be acquitted.
This procedure can be described in many ways—and I am now addressing myself to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, rather than to the noble Viscount—but I should have thought it would not give a great deal of reassurance to chief officers who are worried about controlling their own men from the point of view of police discipline. Here you would have a situation with the unanimity rule where the chief officer, who on both occasions voted for conviction, was overruled by the third member who took a contrary view. I must say that I take the noble Viscount's point, because he put his case with great moderation; but I am worried about this. As he rightly said—and it is only right to say this in view of the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who played a major part in the matter of unanimity in juries—we have got away
826
from the unanimous decision by juries; but that is not a happy parallel to the adoption in this case of a requirement of unanimity. It is not the rule so far as a bench of magistrates are concerned, in so far as that is parallel. A majority of magistrates can convict or, more obviously, acquit, as the case may be. Certainly there is no suggestion that a third magistrate should, by voting for one particular course of action, secure a rehearing of the case. I think it is also the position of your Lordships' House in a judicial capacity that a majority is a majority and there is not, as it were, one blocking member.
For the reasons I have given, I think we should hesitate long about insisting on a unanimity rule. Let us consider the case in which there will be a tribunal. The noble Viscount is right. There will be a tribunal in only a minority of cases, and arguably a small minority. There will be a tribunal in one of two sets of circumstances. The first is that there is a serious public interest question involved. I wonder whether the sort of procedure I have outlined would be very attractive so far as that is concerned : it is agreed by the Police Complaints Board that there is a serious public interest issue, and yet you could have this highly unsatisfactory situation of one member of the tribunal, when the case is heard, blocking the majority decision on both occasions, leading, on the third occasion, presumably to the policeman against whom the charges were preferred, the policeman whom a majority of the members of the tribunal believe to have been guilty, walking out a free man. And not only a free man but remaining a member of the Police Service, even in the most exceptional circumstances where, if he had been found guilty, the chief officer—sitting alone so far as this particular element is concerned on the issue of punishment—would have required him to have resigned from the force.
The second set of circumstances in which there will be a tribunal is a point that we came to a few moments ago, where the Board has directed that disciplinary action should be taken. This will happen only in a small minority of cases, but I do not believe that in either of these two sets of circumstances the public interest would be safeguarded by insisting on unanimity. I think that arguably it could have the reverse effect. it could lead to more anxiety rather than to less; it could cause

827
a great deal of concern to members of the public who are in a position of making complaints and, secondly, to the chief officers who are responsible in future, as at the moment, for the discipline of their forces.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: The judgment that we have to apply to this really seems to me to depend on which of the examples one takes. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has suggested a situation where the unanimity rule would be inimical to police discipline. I have suggested an example where the majority rule would be inimical to police discipline. So far as I can see, the arguments that underlie what both of us have said are exactly the same: that there would be concern if police discipline was in any way harmed.
Let us analyse for a moment what the noble Lord has said. He has said that my suggestion is unfortunate and, perhaps, undesirable, because it would be possible when a policeman was charged for there to be on the first occasion a lack of unanimity so that he had to be tried again; on both occasions the chief constables—probably two different chief constables—thought he should be convicted; but on both occasions the third member (from the argument, necessarily a member of the Board) disagreed and was in favour of acquittal. Then, said the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that policeman goes out not only a free man but continuing to he a member of the police force, although his own chief constable on, at any rate, one of the occasions, would have liked to have convicted him. That, says the noble Lord, is an undesirable situation and the police might dislike it. But consider what would happen if there was not a majority; there would be the same police officer tried and there would he a situation where the chief constable would like to convict him but the two members of the Board disagree. What happens? That policeman walks out not only a free man but continuing to be a member of the police force despite the fact that the chief constable would have liked to convict him. What is the advantage one way or the other from the policeman's point of view? I cannot see where the noble Lord's argument gets us on this matter.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: To deal with the one point which the noble Viscount has made, he makes a more than good debating point, but the substance of the matter is a little different. The view of a number of chief officers of police is this: the evidence before a tribunal would be of such a degree of complexity, and there would be certain features to the evidence which would make it apparent only to an experienced police officer that in fact a man had behaved improperly, that a lay member of the tribunal would not in fact realise that the man was guilty, but the chief officer would. The anxieties of the chief officers are that they are fearful that in some cases the members of the tribunal would not recognise the possible guilt of the police officer concerned. This is the point to which I was seeking to address myself. The noble Viscount is quite right, there are disadvantages on either side of this argument. I accept that point immediately. We have to strike a fair balance. We do not require unanimity anywhere else, and I am not clear why we take the view that unanimity is essential in the police disciplinary hearings.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: Are we to understand that in certain cases only the chief constable is going to know whether or not a policeman is guilty ? if so, can he not explain that to the lay members ? If not, why are we having tribunals at all?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should not embark on too many interruptions in the noble Viscount's speech, I was attempting to put as fairly as I could some anxieties which have been expressed by some chief officers. I do not share all those views, but I thought it right to indicate what they were.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: We are still in the difficulty that if we have a very technical case under the police regulations, where it is not easy for the layman to follow what is the element of guilt that is being brought forward in the charge, as the Bill now stands we are just as likely to have two non-comprehending members of the Board as with my suggestion there would be one non-comprehending member of the Board. I do not want to continue with this. I have not been supported by anybody else

829
in this Committee, not even this time by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, though perhaps it may be said he supported me in advance. Now we have fined down the area of disagreement—certainly from the point of view of the police—I should like to ask their views upon this directly to see which of the two situations they would prefer if they have to have one or the other. Therefore, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
(" (6) Proceedings under this section shall be heard by the Tribunal sitting in public unless in the opinion of the Tribunal interests of national security are involved.")
The noble Viscount said: I suppose that in a moment I will be accused of attempting to be a friend of everybody and ending up a friend of none. This Amendment goes back to the reassurance of the public. I am grateful to those in the Committee who have taken part in our discussions. We have been discussing what is going to happen at a disciplinary tribunal and whether it is better that there should be this membership or that, a majority or unanimity. Underlying all this was what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, said, and what I said earlier on, which is an attempt to bring by whatever means an independent element into the whole question of police complaints.
I understand that, normally speaking—and perhaps universally because this is only going to be an extended arm of police disciplinary machinery as it now exists—the disciplinary tribunal will sit in private. I suppose the complainant has to attend as he is a witness. Whether he is allowed to attend throughout the hearing, and whether or not he is allowed to discover whether there is a majority in the case of the adjudication, I do not know. Otherwise, there will be no member of the public there and T suspect that the only source of information anybody will have about the disciplinary tribunal set up under Clause 4 will be when the Police Complaints Board reports to Parliament, as they have to do under the Bill, and when people read that. How full those reports
830
will be, and what will be told about individual cases, I do not know. If the proceedings are to be in private I suspect that it will not be entirely proper to make too many details public in the report sent to Parliament.
So I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, by this Amendment how the tribunal is going to reassure the public that any independent element has had an effective part in this proceedings at all. How is anybody going to know anything of what is happening? Incidentally, why cannot the proceedings be in public? I entirely understand that it may not be suitable for every police disciplinary charge to be heard in public any more than any Service charge is necessarily heard in public. If we are concerned with the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred us—that is to say, the one where grave public misgiving or a basic public interest is at stake—or if we are concerned with a case where there has been a disagreement between the police force concerned and the Board, I should have thought those were the cases where the public is particularly concerned to know what has happened. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would think about this. But the public will not be able to know what has happened.
Why cannot a comparatively rare tribunal of this kind sit in public? I have never seen it argued why they should not. It has simply been asserted that this has been grafted on to the police disciplinary machinery, and as they at the moment do not sit in public then neither should these tribunals. Can the noble Lord explain what is the rooted objection to this, particularly in view of the whole purpose of this legislation? If he rejects the whole aspect of sitting in public, can the noble Lord throw any light on how members of the public can find out what happens on these occasions? I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Perhaps I might begin by detailing the present arrangements and then come on to the new ones. The situation at the moment is that disciplinary hearings arising as a result of complaint from a lay member of the public are heard by the chief officer sitting alone and are not open to the

831
public; however where charges have arisen out of a complaint by a member of the public, the complainant is normally entitled to be present during the examination of witnesses and may be allowed to put questions to the accused officer. He may of course be a witness himself. That will continue to be the situation under the regulations which we make under this scheme. Therefore the complainant can be there. There is an exception where a member of the public can be asked to withdraw when evidence is being given, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. That is the situation at the moment which obviously will continue. That is manifestly sensible. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, says where you have a tribunal why should you not have a rather different procedure? That sounds, if I may say so, not at all unreasonable. I suggest it is more difficult than that because a tribunal is in essence an ordinary disciplinary hearing writ large. It certainly is in one of the two cases which we are considering. Where there has been a disagreement between the Board and a deputy chief constable and there is a tribunal, it does not seem to me that that in itself justifies a public hearing, because the only reason why there is a tribunal is that there has been a disagreement.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Not quite, with respect, because it is a case where the policeman otherwise would have got away with it; there would have been no hearing at all because no charge would have been brought. But the independent element which has been injected by this Bill was not satisfied with that and, on behalf of the public, has insisted upon it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes; in that case the complainant's rights — which are of course central to this matter —are safeguarded by the fact that there is going to be a disciplinary hearing by a tribunal. But one has to consider the fact that publicity, apart from the other aspects, can be very damaging, as we all know on the basis of what happens in the criminal courts, apart from anything else. It seems to be unreasonable, even if a policeman is acquitted by the tribunal, that in the case where the only reason for the tribunal's sitting —I keep coming back
832
to this point —is that there has been a disagreement between the deputy chief constable and the Board, the case would be publicised. It would not be publicised if it was a case which was heard solely before the chief constable and, with respect, that does not seem to me to be fair or just to the officer concerned.
The noble Viscount asks: "What is the safeguard to the complainant ? " I have endeavoured to answer that. The safeguard is that the tribunal hearing is taking place and the complainant has the right to he there, just as he has if there is a hearing before the chief officer of police. Therefore, I do not consider it is right to insist on a public hearing, for the reasons I have indicated, in a case of this sort. I think the public interest has been safeguarded by the scheme and that it would be wrong to introduce a system of this kind, which would be viewed with grave misgivings by many people in the police service. Although the noble Viscount can fairly say, as he did over the last Amendment, "Many parts of this scheme will be viewed with grave misgivings by different groups of people", I think in this particular case they would be justified in feeling anxious that there was to be a public hearing, with the Press present and so on, whereas if there had not been a disagreement there would not have been publicity. I think that would be harsh and unjust to the officer concerned.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: But that is only half the story. I take the noble Lord's point about that; but what about the other sort of tribunal which is going to occur just because it is a case of major concern ? That is a very different matter. The whole raison d'etre for the tribunal is that it is a matter of much wider concern and one in which not only the complainant is interested. Would it not be possible to give in the regulations some opportunity, perhaps, for the chairman of the Board to consider whether some of these cases should not be held in public?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount is quite right. That is the second leg of the argument concerning the need for a tribunal hearing because there is a public interest element. But let me just come back to the point of publicity in cases of this sort, which can be exceptionally damaging to the career of the

833
officer concerned. We have to take this into account. This is a highly sensitive area, obviously, and one wants to be just to the complainant and to the individual officer. One also has to take into account the need to maintain proper discipline in a disciplined service. The fact that a tribunal hearing is to take place because of public interest in the case does not necessarily mean that the case is of a particularly grave character, in terms of the specific charge laid against the individual officer. There may be circumstances, of a kind which one would not wish to specify, where the surrounding circumstances were disturbing but the charge against the officer was far less serious than charges against officers who appear only before the chief constable and where the chief constable, sitting alone, disposes of the case in private.
Therefore, one would have a rather quixotic element introduced into the scheme where, as a result of the view taken by the Police Complaints Board that there was a public interest in having a tribunal hearing, the matter is held in public. I think one has to ensure justice for the officer who is complained against, and I do not believe that his interests would be safeguarded by this scheme; nor do I believe that the public interest would be safeguarded either necessarily.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Once again, in this case rather to my surprise, no other member of the Committee has seen fit to intervene and express a view. Therefore I am only in a position to set my arguments against those of the noble Lord and I can assume that this aspect has been very fully considered by the Home Office, by the noble Lord, and by the Home Secretary and his advisers. I would ask the noble Lord (though of course I do not expect an answer today) how one is to deal with what I genuinely believe to be a valid criticism : that although it is on their behalf —this is the second leg of the argument —that the occasion is seen as being such that real and wide public interest demands a tribunal hearing rather than an ordinary disciplinary hearing, they are never really going to find out what part is played by anybody, or indeed anything more, I suppose, than the bare outcome of the hearing, if that. Because, if it is really only a matter of discipline, the only way of discovering what happened
834
is by happening to see whether the policeman concerned is walking his beat or driving his panda car. There will be no further evidence at all other than the report. If the noble Lord will be so kind as to say that he will consider this, I will certainly think very carefully about what he has to say concerning the effect on the officer, which I fully understand. However, I do think there is still a point here which might be overcome by administrative means, and I shall welcome any further thoughts that he has.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the Amendment, might I say to him that I think the views he has expressed will be shared in other parts of the Committee, and certainly by me. I should not like him to suppose that he is receiving no support at all for this Amendment. All those who are concerned with the protection of the public and with the public feeling that the complaints they make have been independently investigated, will feel they wish to give some support to what the noble Viscount has said. I would urge, if I may, that the noble Viscount should not withdraw his Amendment without seeking an assurance from the Government that they will give this matter further consideration.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I rather detected from the way in which Lord Harris's head was going up and down that he was agreeing to have another look at this question to see whether he can put something into the Bill. There may be a method of bringing about some publicity of the results of these things in another way. Perhaps he would indicate whether that is so, either formally or in some other way.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It always gives me pleasure to consider anything that the noble Viscount suggests on almost any subject and I will certainly do so in this case, although there is a gulf of principle between us in terms of these hearings. On the point made by the noble Viscount, I will gladly look into this, but would not wish to suggest that we are going to move towards public hearings, because that raises formidable problems.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I was not asking the noble Lord to make any breach of that principle, but to see whether we could get somewhere near the same sort of thing by a different route. Upon the assurance he has just given, and with my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I now ask permission to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.40 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: I should like to raise a short point which I raised at Second Reading. At column 1471 of the Official Report for 17th June, I said:
"…there are no provisions giving any right " —
by which, of course, I meant legal right —
"to the complainant to appear before the Board or their tribunal, or to say what his complaint is, or to call his evidence ".
In reply to that, my noble friend Lord Harris said, at column 1494, that I had asked,
"…whether the complainant could put his case before the tribunal. If a tribunal sits, or if a disciplinary hearing takes place, the complainant will almost certainly be one of the witnesses before it. I hope that that deals with that point ".
With the greatest respect, it does not quite. That is because I am rather old-fashioned and I like laws which provide for the liberties of our citizens to be in Acts of Parliament, rather than in regulations drafted by departmental civil servants after the Acts have been passed.
A man may be innocent, but in prison. Of course, if he is in custody I suppose that the police can take him anywhere, but he obviously has no ability to go anywhere unless the police agree. I respectfully ask again: where in the Bill do I find any legal right given to the complainant to attend the tribunal and give evidence about his grievance? If I have understood correctly what my noble friend has just said, there is no such legal right. It is not intended to give him any such legal right in the Bill but the Home Secretary, after the Act has been passed, will make some regulations. Then it becomes of somewhat vital importance for us to be clearly told, in terms from which there can be no later departure, what arc to be the contents of the regulations, because this is obviously
836
very important to the complainant. For example, will he have the right to representation, and so on?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: What I endeavoured to say on the earlier Amendment was that the situation will remain largely as it is at present. At the moment, a complainant can go to a disciplinary hearing presided over by a chief officer of police, and that situation will continue. I must emphasise that we are talking about a very tiny number of cases when we speak about the tribunal. The overwhelming majority of police disciplinary cases will continue to be dealt with by chief officers sitting alone. The distinction in the system is that there will be an independent review of complaints made by members of the public. But the situation will remain in future exactly as it is at the moment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is quite right; the matter will be dealt with by regulations laid under Clause 6 of the Bill. I cannot pretend to him that these regulations are yet prepared: clearly, they have to be drafted. But I give him the guarantee that there is no intention at all of withdrawing any of a complainant's rights, and they will remain exactly as they are now. As I said, under this scheme nobody wishes to withdraw any of the rights that have been conferred.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Complaints that may involve criminal proceedings]:
5.43 p.m.
Viscount MONCK Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 4, at end insert —
("(4) Where any complaint alleges that a police officer has committed an offence and notwithstanding any decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to institute proceedings against the officer, the complainant decides to institute such proceedings on his own account, no action shall be taken by the Police Complaints Board or the chief officer of police to finalise the complaints investigation and the hearing of any disciplinary charges arising therefrom until such proceedings by the complainant have been finalised.
(5) Where during an investigation of a complaint it appears that an allegation against a police officer is such that the matter is one that is capable of being resolved by civil proceedings against the officer (or against the chief officer of police by virtue of section 48 of the Police Act 1964) the

837
Board may, upon application being made by the chief officer of police, direct that the investigation of the complaint be suspended until such time as the civil proceedings are disposed of ").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment proposes the insertion of two new subsections, and unless the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has any objection I propose to speak to them —to use the beautiful French employed in my village — en bloc. My proposed subsection (4) would make certain that court proceedings took precedence over disciplinary proceedings. If a complainant decides to institute proceedings on his own account, even though the Director of Public Prosecutions has not decided to do the same, and a police officer is found guilty of an offence, then it is quite simple to institute disciplinary proceedings under the existing disciplinary code against the officer concerned.
Subsection (5) is designed to ensure that complainants do not use the complaints and disciplinary procedure in serious cases as an alternative to civil proceedings. There are many cases where civil proceedings are open to a complainant, but which are so trivial that they would not justify such proceedings being taken. On the other hand, cases occur where a complaints investigation is launched at the instance of a complainant and are, in effect, used either as a dummy run for future civil proceedings, or as a means of putting the police authority in a position where it is difficult to resist a claim for damages. The two subsections that I am suggesting would dispose of those possibilities. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. There is a gap here which he has most wisely detected, and it seems to me, in the ordinary case of possible criminal proceedings, that if there will be disciplinary action it should be postponed or interrupted if a private prosecution is brought, or if it looks as if there will be a civil action. I am particularly concerned with the civil action, because if a disciplinary charge continues and it produces a result, I am not sure what the evidential situation may be. I have not looked too carefully at the Civil Evidence Act in regard to this point, but I should have thought that Section 13 would probably enable a plaintiff to bring in the result of the disciplinary charge if he
838
could find it, and, at any rate, he would be able to use the facts that had emerged in the course of the investigation of the complaint. So there may well be something to be said for putting these matters into the same form as occurs under Clause 5(1), and I shall be very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has to say about that.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I hope to satisfy both noble Viscounts on this Amendment and, if I may, I will deal with each of these issues separately. The proposed new subsection (4) deals with a complaint which raises possible criminal and disciplinary offences. It apparently seeks to lay down that where the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided against a prosecution, and the complainant then decides to prosecute on his own account, the completion of any disciplinary investigation and the hearing of any disciplinary charges should be left in abeyance pending the completion of the criminal proceedings.
Subsection (5) seeks to lay down that where the complaint is one for which the complainant may seek his redress by way of a civil action against the officer concerned, or, I suppose, the chief constable, the Complaints Board may give approval to the chief constable's application that investigation of the complaint should be left in abeyance pending hearing of the civil action. As I indicated, I hope to persuade the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, that the Amendment is unnecessary to achieve his objective.
It is already the normal practice to defer altogether any investigation of a complaint which concerns matters which are also the subject of pending court proceedings. This would apply whether the criminal proceedings were conducted by the Director, or the police or by the complainant himself, which I think is the issue which the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, has in mind. Any separate disciplinary investigation or any disciplinary hearing would also be deferred on its becoming known that a complainant, after hearing from the Director of Public Prosecutions, proposed to institute criminal proceedings on his own account. This is also the normal procedure where it becomes known that a complainant is bringing a civil action, which deals with

839
the noble Viscount's point. These procedures would continue to be observed following the establishment of the Complaints Board. It is intended that the subject should be covered in the guidance which will be given by the Home Office to chief officers on the handling of investigation and related proceedings.
If I may, I will deal with the question of civil proceedings, because the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, referred to these. In the present situation, which we intend shall continue, paragraph 19 of Home Office Circular No. 21 of 1967, reads as follows:
" Where a complainant indicates that he is proposing to take civil action against the officer he complains of, it would be right to make it clear to him that his complaint will not normally be the subject of a disciplinary hearing until the proceedings in the civil courts have been finished. On the other hand, it would not be right to refrain from a thorough investigation of a complaint, or from bringing disciplinary charges, if that seems appropriate, merely because a complainant might decide to pursue a civil action. The chief constable is not relieved of his disciplinary responsibility simply because of the possibility that a complainant might decide to pursue the matter in a civil court. Disciplinary action should be deferred only if it is reasonably clear that a complainant is resorting to the courts ".
I think that is a fair position in relation to the complainant and the police officer against whom the complaint is made, and it will continue to be the situation.
Viscount MONCK: I caught the first few words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich —that it is the practice —and I remember the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a short time ago: that it is all very well to say that it is the practice or habit to do this but can one not have it in the Bill. I am not yet convinced as to why subsections cannot be included in the Bill to make this point absolutely clear. Would the noble Lord be prepared to go a little further and say why we cannot have them?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: If I may say so with respect to the noble Viscount, although I will always consider any point he puts before the Committee, I do not see great advantage in putting on the Statute Book provisions which are the practice at the moment. There is no intention of departing from the existing situation. The noble Viscount has asked me to look at the matter, and of course
840
I will do so. I do not know whether he has in mind a recent case which may have troubled him??
Viscount MONCK: No.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I understand he does not. I thought that the noble Viscount might have had at the back of his mind a recent case, and I am reassured to find that apparently this is not so. Certainly I will look at the matter —and I hope that the noble Viscount also will reflect upon it —but I feel that the situation at the moment is satisfactory. I do not want to advocate putting unnecessary requirements on the Statute Book when there is a clear practice about which nobody has a great deal of doubt. However, as the noble Viscount has asked me to look at the matter, I will do so.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: There is just the point that under Circular 21/67 the existing practice relates to ordinary police disciplinary machinery. Here we are legislating for the Board. In Clause 5(1) we are telling the Board to hold their hand —or, rather, we are telling the Board to ask the chief officer not to embroil the Board under Clause 2(1): not to send material to the Board until the Director of Public Prosecutions has made up his mind. We are legislating for the Board, or for things which go to the Board —or it may be that we are legislating for both. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, considers this point, might it not be right to consider what the Board ought to do, because that is what the Bill is about? We do not need to tinker with the existing practice, so perhaps that is the right line to take. Incidentally, I should not be unduly worried if the new subsection (5) were not included. It is subsection (4) which is more important.
Viscount MONCK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for saying that he will have another look at this point. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
"Complaints made in relation to prosecution or trial.
(—(1) Where a complaint is made by or on behalf of a person about the conduct of a member of a police force in relation to the prosecution or trial of that person, the chief officer of police to whom the complaint is made shall, if so requested by or on behalf of the complainant, send to the Police Complaints Board a copy of the complaint if made in writing or of the record of the complaint if made orally.
(2)The Board shall thereupon consider whether the complaint contains any allegation which, if it were made out in whole or in part, would in the opinion of the Board cast serious doubt on the validity of any conviction of the complainant.
(3)If the Board is of the aforesaid opinion it shall so inform the chief officer of police and the complainant and shall require the complaint to be investigated after the conclusion of the complainant's trial and regardless of whether any appeal therefrom is pending, and the Board may, if it thinks fit, require the investigation to be carried out by an officer of another police force of such rank as the Board shall direct.
(4)The report of the investigation shall be rendered direct to the Board and if the Board is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further investigations should be made the Board shall require such further investigations to be carried out as it thinks fit and the report thereof (hereinafter called the supplementary report) shall be rendered direct to the Board.
(5)Any such investigation shall be completed and the report thereof rendered to the Board regardless of any pending disciplinary proceedings against or prosecution of any member of the police force concerned or any other person or any appeal therefrom.
(6)On receipt of the report (including any supplementary report) the Board shall send to the complainant, to any court before which any appeal by the complainant may then be pending, and to any prosecutor acting in such an appeal, a statement of the facts disclosed by the investigation and copies of the statements of any witnesses interviewed in the course of the investigation, with the exception only of such facts and statements as, in the opinion of the Board, should be excluded in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of crime.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a point which I adumbrated at Second Reading, and as there are many noble Lords present today who were not here on that occasion I will shortly explain the point of the Amendment. The United Kingdom is exceptional in that our police are not subject to central Government. In most Western democracies the police are subject to a Minister who is responsible to Parliament. In London we have the Metro-
842
politan Police and in England and Wales there are 42 chief constables who are very much a law unto themselves.
Our police are peculiar in a second way. Everywhere else in Western Europe they do not prosecute. In criminal cases, our police investigate crimes reported to them, interrogate suspects and decide whether or not there is to be a prosecution —and, if so, who is to be prosecuted, what the charge is to be and what evidence is to be called. And the police prosecute. This does not happen anywhere else in democratic Western Europe. The police have never been allowed to prosecute in Scotland and, on the recommendation of the Hunt Committee, prosecutions in Northern Ireland, except for trivial cases, are now in the hands of the Director. In most Western democracies there is an independent prosecuting authority which stands between the police and the citizen.
It is now six years since Justice published a long report on this point, strongly advocating that we should go over to this system. Justice has been worried about a small group of cases in which a man complains that his conviction has resulted from his being framed by the police —either they have given deliberately false evidence against him, they have planted things on him, or they have suborned witnesses for the defence — and he is subsequently proved to have been telling the truth. It is a difficult situation for anybody on trial to cope with, but naturally the man hopes that the truth will come out at the appeal.
What has disturbed Justice has been the increasing number of cases like the Confait case where three young adolescents, at least one of whom was mentally retarded, were convicted of murder and arson and it was a matter of years before it was proved that they could not possibly have committed any of the offences. The number of cases in which the truth does not come out during the appeal is disturbing; it is only when the Home Secretary refers back the case to the Court of Appeal that the truth comes out. I feel that this must be embarrassing to the Court of Appeal because, quite wrongly, it may look as though there is something unhappy about the way in which they do their work, or as if they are not concerned with ascertaining the truth. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong than that.

843
What happens here? There is a difference between police authorities. In a case like this, A.10 and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police very often get on right away with their inquiry, and if they find out something which is in favour of the defence and which ought to be put before the Court of Appeal, of course they can deal with it. But when a complaint of this kind is made against the police most, if not all, of the 42 independent chief constables will not even start the inquiry until the appeal is over. That makes it absolutely impossible for the Court of Appeal to ascertain those facts.
I believe that I suggested at Second Reading that one may have the fact —it is only the facts which are relevant —that a station book is found containing an entry which is the complete opposite of the evidence that the police gave at the trial, and when one looks at the book one can see that somebody has altered it. The question is, ought not that fact to be before the Court of Appeal at the hearing of the appeal? In this country we prosecute fairly. The prosecution have a statement from a witness whom they do not intend to call because clearly his evidence is in favour of the defence. The prosecution know that the defence do not know about the witness. Their duty is to ensure that his name and address are given to the defence, and in general it is not the business of the prosecution in this country to withhold from courts evidence which they believe to be in favour of the defence.
This has nothing whatever to do with what police do in every other country of the world. That is to say, they keep order on the streets, interrogate suspects, ascertain crime and so on. This has to do with what the police do only in England. They act as prosecutors. I am simply dealing with the duty of a prosecution in a criminal trial. If by the time a case gets to the Court of Appeal the prosecution know that there is evidence which clearly shows that somebody is innocent, or even if they know that there are circumstances in which the Court of Appeal would be likely to say that this conviction was not safe or satisfactory, then it is not their duty to conceal those facts from the court.
As I said last time, I have no intention of carrying this Amendment to a Division
844
because I know the Government are very sympathetic. All through the 21 days of the Committee stage and the four days of the Report stage in the other place they went on saying, "Yes, this is a problem. We recognise that it is a difficulty. We ought to meet it if we can. There are many difficulties. We should like to help. We are doing our best. We are thinking about it. We are consulting. We shall have to see how we get on."
I asked my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich two questions at the end of the Second Reading debate. Through no fault of his he was unable to answer, because I had not thought of giving him notice of them. The first was whether the Government now intend, if not next year then in 1978 or 1979, to introduce an independent prosecuting authority, and the second was how they are getting on with their negotiations. They said: "We are negotiating with the police about this point "; and they also said: "We are negotiating with the Court of Appeal ". If he could tell us how these negotiations are going, I should be very much obliged. I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am afraid I have nothing more to say about whether the Government would be able to proceed to set up an independent prosecuting agency. There has been no decision on a matter of that sort. As I said briefly at the end of the Second Reading debate, quite apart from any other consideration, this would involve major financial considerations and, in the present financial situation, it is quite impossible to contemplate significant new additions to public expenditure. I know that my noble and learned friend will not be happy with that reply, but I am afraid I cannot go further than I did on that occasion.
The point which the noble and learned Lord has put before the Committee today is obviously an important one. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met a delegation from Justice to discuss this matter some significant time ago, and I am well aware that there is some considerable amount of anxiety about the situation, because my noble and learned friend is quite right in saying that there is a difference in practice, comparing the procedure in London and the procedure

845
outside London. On the other hand —and I must make it quite clear before I go into the merits of what he said —we do not believe that this is really a matter for the Police Complaints Board. In general the Board have no role to play in the consideration of criminal charges against police officers, and we do not think they should have.
The Board will also not be equipped to take an informed view about whether, if a complaint against a police officer were made out in whole or in part, this would cast serious doubts on the validity of any conviction. Also the Board will not be equipped to select from the report of an investigation, material which is relevant to an appeal. In short, the Board will have neither the expertise nor the staff to attempt to intervene in criminal proceedings. To make a change of this kind would in fact mean making a structural change in the proposed role of the Board, and that frankly would be unacceptable to the Government.
On the central question —because I know that my noble and learned friend is really primarily concerned about the issue of principle —I will merely say this: what I think we are trying to achieve here is increased flexibility between trial and appeal to the Court of Appeal. The problem before us is to devise some means of isolating the minority of cases where there is a genuine possibility that the investigation of a Section 49 complaint may bring forward evidence relevant to the accused's guilt or innocence of the criminal charge, from the many cases where that clearly is not so. It should be recognised that if there is greater flexibility a great many people will be tempted to make a Section 49 complaint against a police officer as a means of getting a second look at their conviction, even if that complaint has no merit. If it becomes the general practice to have a second look at everything, any arrangement we may devise will become increasingly unworkable. The people who will suffer from this are those concerned in cases such as my noble and learned friend touched on this afternoon, where there is a real grievance and a genuine cause for disquiet.
If we may assume that ways can be found of isolating the genuine cases from the rest —and undoubtedly that is a formidable task —there will be a need to
846
identify and put forward relevant information arising in the course of the investigation in a form which the Court of Appeal can handle, and to limit what is put to the court only that material which is relevant to the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This will require some time and a considerable amount of expertise.
Coming now to the point which the noble and learned Lord touched on particularly in the Second Reading debate; namely, the difference in practice, our inquiries confirm that there is indeed a difference in practice —or perhaps a more accurate way of putting it is that there is some difference. In London, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs us that investigations, not necessarily arising only out of a Section 49 complaint, have on occasions taken place between trial and appeal in the following circumstances. First, when information about police documents or the examination of exhibits has been requested by the appellant, either direct or through the registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; secondly, at the request of the trial judge; and, thirdly, because matters came to the attention of the police, quite outside the context of any complaint or request by the appellant, which threw doubt on the validity of the conviction. The Commissioner has told me that in some cases where the Metropolitan Police have had doubts about whether it was proper to continue with an investigation prior to the hearing of an appeal, they have written to the registrar of the Court of Appeal explaining why they considered that the investigation should take place forthwith and stating that unless the court objected it would go ahead. This is certainly no automatic investigation at the option of the defendant, and I think I must make that very clear indeed.
I am bound to say that there does not seem to me to be quite the same flexibility in all other parts of the country. I think there is a fear in some police forces that confusion and complication could easily arise if they were to move in this direction. However, we are continuing our discussions with those concerned, with the intention of exploring whether the practice at present adopted in the Metropolitan Police District might be more generally adopted. It may be that there

847
will be other cases which could be added to the list of those which I have cited in terms of dealing with the Commissioner's present practice. We have written to the organisations concerned and envisage that there will he further talks with them when they have had time to consider our proposals.
Certainly we are aware of the noble and learned Lord's views in this matter and I know from my experience in connection with the question of computers that the noble and learned Lord will press me diligently to ensure that we make haste with these consultations. As I have endeavoured to point out to the Committee, there are real problems here. It is a highly complex matter and we are trying to achieve some common approach in the Police Service. I would not want to give a firm pledge about time. All I want to say is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary attaches considerable importance to this issue, as I think my noble and learned friend knows, and certainly we will push on with these discussions as diligently as we can and I will report on the outcome as soon as I possibly can.
6.10 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to delay the Committee on this Amendment, but perhaps it would be appropriate if something was said from these Benches. The view that the prosecutions in England should follow what is a frequent, and possibly even an almost universal, practice elsewhere is obviously an arguable one. I personally would welcome a debate, perhaps to be initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in which the views of the society known as Justice could be ventilated, perhaps in this House. I do not think that this Bill is the appropriate occasion for it.
Of course, I recognise that in the present financial situation, it would not be appropriate for anyone speaking from these Benches to press the Government to embark on what would obviously involve an increase in expenditure. Moreover, I venture to express doubts as to whether, in the present state of under-manning of both branches of the legal profession, an adequate district attorney's
848
system could be worked out, or a sheriff substitute or a procurator fiscal —I beg his pardon —or whatever they are called in Scotland, could be worked out. It is obviously a matter which we shall have to consider at some time, and the fact that the financial stringency of the present situation prevents us taking immediate action would perhaps provide a useful period in which we could ventilate this subject in public, because so far as I know it has not been fully ventilated in either House. I would prefer to hold my own hand on it here, because I do not think I could do so without transgressing the rules of order.
On the other matter raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I think there is a very serious question which must be dealt with, irrespective of the financial situation, though I venture to share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as to whether this Bill is necessarily the right vehicle for doing it. There have been too many cases of one sort and another —and I agree with the noble Lord that they have been of more than one kind —in which persons who have quite properly been convicted by force of evidence and then had their appeals dismissed —so far as one can judge quite properly —on existing procedures by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, have subsequently turned out to be entirely innocent. Nobody could rest happy with that situation, and in point of fact nobody could allow the present financial stringency to prevent immediate action.
My own conviction is that the Home Office would be well advised to devise some means whereby material not now available to the Court of Appeal should become available before the appeal is heard, in quite a wide range of cases. I doubt whether the Complaints Board is quite the vehicle to do it, but cases can occur either because the police have not properly investigated an alleged alibi —which happened, I think, in the case of Dougherty—or in cases where there has been some impropriety on the part of the police in interrogating witnesses and in giving evidence, or it can also happen where there is no kind of complaint against the police at all, but there may be some new material.
One is happy to think that this probably sorts itself out in oneway or another, sooner

849
or later. But it is not good enough to leave it to chance, and it is not good enough to leave it to the later rather than the sooner. Although I accept his figure, and that he is right in what he has said with regard to the present Amendment, I hope the noble Lord will take back to his colleague the view that this is something which disturbs many of us in relation to criminal appeals. Since I have taken in this House a more precise interest in the working of the Court of Appeal, which I have had to do since 1970, I have felt more and more that there is a chink in our armour. I am borrowing a phrase from the Lord Chief Justice in using that phrase, but there is a chink in our armour, and possibly more than one.
Lord GARDINER: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what he has been good enough to say. I think we are agreed that the kernel of the matter is the difference in practice in London and by most of the chief constables outside London. It is desirable that the latter should be brought to conform with the former. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord will continue his consultations. No doubt his right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bear in mind that a Home Office advisory circular is a very fine affair to which everybody, and, no doubt, even chief constables, pays attention, and which in the last resort perhaps could be used. If I may say so, I am grateful for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, about the problems of an independent prosecuting authority. I welcome his suggestion that we might at some time, but I apprehend not this summer or autumn, have a debate on the subject.
In order that it may not be thought that I have agreed to something I have not, may I just say in a word that I do not accept the suggestion that there are vast resource implications, for the simple reason that nearly every county now has its own prosecuting solicitors. There are 450 prosecuting solicitors all over the country doing nothing else. The staff is there to attach to the director; the State already pays the cost, as I understand it, of the Crown Court prosecutions; local authorities pay those for the magistrates' courts, and they are reimbursed 80 per cent., so we are only talking about a transfer from
850
central to local government. I am not going into that in detail, but there is a case to be made for saying that there is no real reason to suppose that this will cost anything at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Complaints regulations]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 37, leave out (" or 4(5) ") and insert (", 4(5) or 5(2) and (3) ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Constabularies maintained by authorities other than police authorities]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 22, leave out (" twelve ") and insert (" six ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is an issue which was debated in another place. It fulfils an undertaking given to the noble Viscount's honourable friends. It deals with the question of the time limit so far as employers', if I may so describe them, police forces are concerned. It might well be pressed in another place, but it was found more convenient to make the Amendment here.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I welcome this Amendment, and remember the circumstances in which it was discussed. It seems to me that the sooner one has power to insist that the employers' police forces are brought in to the same general relationship with the Board, the better. Therefore, as this has that effect, I welcome the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Disciplinary charges in criminal cases]:
6.19 p.m.
Viscount MONCK Viscount MONCK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert (" or of an offence against discipline which taken alone would not constitute a criminal offence.")
The noble Viscount said: The number 13 has always been my lucky number. This is my last intervention tonight — Custer's last stand, which is not to imply that the Front Bench of the Government look like Red Indians!
In my view, this small insertion will mean that we can get over something which is wrong. If a police officer is accused of a criminal act and is acquitted of that criminal act, evidence may come out that in some way he has offended against the discipline of the force. For example, suppose he has been acquitted of a bribery and corruption charge, but the evidence discloses that he has been an associate of criminals, or has handled money or property by methods which contravene the orders of the force, or has failed to report matters it was his duty to report, he cannot be proceeded against by the police, or by the tribunal or what have you. Take an analogy from another profession. Supposing a soldier has deserted from his regiment, and a short time afterwards his wife is found murdered. He is accused of the murder, but is acquitted. In this sense he could not then be proceeded against by his regiment for desertion. I consider that is all wrong, and I think that these few words I am proposing to add to this subsection would make things right. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am very concerned about Clause 11, and I confess that until I discovered what was the full point of the Amendment my noble friend had in mind I was not aware of what seems to me to be a very real danger. I understand that all that has been done, or all that purports to have been done, is to put into the Statute provisions which have always been applied by the police force, and there is intended to be absolutely no change at all. My reading of this provision is that what it is trying to say is this, that if an officer has been dealt with on a criminal charge, regardless of whether he is convicted or acquitted, he shall not be put in jeopardy again, and the analogy is being drawn with the special plea in criminal proceedings of autrefois acquit or convict. I hesitate to talk about this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-yGest, because he it is who has delivered the definitive opinion, in your Lordships'
852
House sitting judicially, on this subject. I hope that I shall make some attempt to get the thing right, because it is an extremely difficult matter and a very complex one. Indeed, as I understand it, in the case of Connolly, the noble and learned Lord laid down nine principles on this subject.
We are concerned with the sort of case my noble friend was talking about. The policeman, regrettably, has been prosecuted for corruption, for receiving bribes, let us say, and he has been acquitted. Nevertheless, there are certain offences against police disciplinary regulations upon which the chief constable would dearly like to have a go at him. The sort of thing, as I understand it, that is done is that he is then dealt with on a disciplinary charge of having failed to report the receipt of money or the disposal of money, something of that sort, which is an internal disciplinary offence. I can very well see that in a disciplined force, a chief constable would be very anxious to retain this sort of power, so that if there is somebody who despite being innocent, found innocent, of a serious crime of this sort, nevertheless in the course of the activities that have been investigated by the criminal court can be demonstrated to have done something which constitutes a disciplinary offence, the chief constable would still be able to deal with it.
I look at what the test is in the ordinary criminal law which is now being imported as a matter of Statute into disciplinary proceedings, and I think the right passage is this:
"The test as to whether the new charge is the same as or substantially the same as or in effect the same as the charge contained in the earlier indictment …"
—in this case, the earlier conviction or acquittal —
"… is whether the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient to procure a legal conviction upon the first ".
That, I think, is what really matters here.
I can entirely understand that one would wish, as this clause does, to preclude a policeman, like anyone else, from having to face disciplinary proceedings upon the same type of charge as he has already had to stand trial for in the court. But what I am worried about is whether we are wise to put the whole of this matter into the Statute and to attract what is at the present moment a very substantial body —and

853
there are pages of it in this book —of common case law into the hearing, and indeed the institution, of disciplinary proceedings. The noble Lord will appreciate that this sort of thing develops as time goes by, and once the Statute Book has Clause 10 upon it it will be necessary for every chief constable to consider carefully what is the state of the common law every time he decides to bring one of these charges.
I do not know whether it is right or not, but reading the passage I have just looked at, the evidence that would be necessary in the case of the disciplinary charge is presumably the receipt of money without entering it in some register. I would have thought that it was at any rate arguable that that same evidence would have been part of the evidence that was necessary to show for the purposes of corruption. It may not be so, but I only take an instance. I can envisage that there may well turn out to be cases where, if you apply the whole body of autrefois acquit law, you will get into a situation where the police are genuinely deprived, because of a technicality, of the ability to deal with a rotten apple in the barrel. That, I think, would be a great mistake.
The trouble is that whereas under the present machinery I am sure they pay the greatest possible regard to the rules of common law as they apply in this kind of way, the moment you put something in the Statute it can be dealt with by taking it up to the courts, taking it up on certiorari to the Divisional Court, and the whole apparatus of the prerogative orders is brought in against it. Therefore, I very seriously wonder, having looked into this again at the instigation of my noble friend, whether it might not be better, since, after all, this has apparently survived quite happily without any statutory basis for a long time, to take this clause out and leave the matter where it was before.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I would never dream of using a debating point against the noble Viscount, but I am in a slight difficulty, and I am sure he will feel for me. Only a few moments ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, complained that we should be writing something into a Statute which was currently common police practice. The contrary
854
argument is now being deployed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and indeed by the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. So the Government are, once again, in the rather unenviable position of trying to please both noble Viscounts at the same time. I will, of course, look at the point that both noble Viscounts have raised. It is the view of nobody in the Police Service —certainly not the Police Federation, who have been most exercised about this question of double jeopardy —that they wish to shield a guilty officer; quite the reverse. On the other hand, it was urged with great vigour in Standing Committee, as the noble Viscount will know, that there should be an explicit statement on double jeopardy, and the Government feel strongly that this is right.
We will certainly look at the point because, as the noble Viscount rightly says, what we are doing is incorporating in a Statute the existing practice. The position at the moment is that double jeopardy does not arise because a chief officer does not charge a man who has been acquitted in a criminal court with precisely the same charge. The only circumstances where a criminal matter is tried before a chief constable is where a police officer has been convicted in a criminal court. If it is a particularly serious matter, the chief constable then has a hearing to determine whether he is going to maintain that man in the Police Service. We should be very loath to go back on this, because there was very strong opinion on both sides of another place that it was in fact necessary to have the no double jeopardy situation spelled out in the most explicit language. Nevertheless, the noble Viscount has raised this point, as has his noble friend, and I shall look at the points they have raised this afternoon.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I again recall very clearly the tremendous arguments about double jeopardy, and I am fully aware of the importance of this matter both from the police point of view, and indeed from any common sense point of view, that it would be intolerable that this should he so. I think what I am really asking is that the drafting should be looked at. This is being tied explicitly to the practice of the criminal courts in such terms that there cannot be any divergence

855
from them at all without the possibility of legal proceedings to put the matter right, and T am not sure that that is necessarily the only way of doing it. Therefore, it is not the principle but the method of applying it that I am asking the noble Lord to look at.
Viscount MONCK: I think my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree with me that, as the noble Lord has said that he will have a look at this — and I am not a legal luminary, as everybody knows; I will have my prompter to look at it again having read Hansard tomorrow —meanwhile I should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
6.33 p.m.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of section 50 of Police Act 1964.
( . For section 50 of the Police Act 1964, there shall be substituted the following section:
"(1) Every police authority in carrying out duties with respect of the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force, and inspectors of constabulary in carrying out their duties with respect to the efficiency of any police force, shall take all necessary steps to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints from members of the public against members of the force are dealt with by the Police Complaints Board and by the Chief Officer of Police.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Police Complaints Board and any Chief Officer of Police to furnish on request to the Secretary of State or any police authority any information or documentation required by them in the exercise of their duties under this Act." ").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Monck, who is just withdrawing from the Chamber, claimed that his intervention was "Custer's last stand ". With deep respect, I want to suggest to him that it was "Custer's last stand but one ", and that this is now "Custer's last stand ". The Home Secretary has frequently reiterated that there is no intention of repealing Section 50 of the Police Act 1964, which places a statutory duty on the police authorities to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints against the
856
police are dealt with by chief constables. Under the provisions of the Bill, however, some of the functions of the chief constable will be shared by the new Board. It seems logical, therefore, that the police authorities should have the same right of contact and of information with the Board and the chief constables as they have had heretofore with the chief constables, but the Bill is silent on this matter. Section 50 of the Police Act 1964 does not spell out the obligation of chief constables to carry out these duties. The Home Secretary has recently informed the associations that in his view the police authorities have the right to this information. There should, therefore, be no objection to it being spelled out in the new Bill, as I should have thought it ought to be.
The Working Group, in Command No. 5582, stressed that supervision of handling of complaints represented an important part of the police authorities' function, and the introduction of any new, independent element in the future should not have the effect of reducing it. In the Bill, as at present drafted, there is indeed some danger of the police officer's function in these matters being diminished as a result of the new Complaints Boards' procedures. Every chief police officer's decision will, in future, in a sort of way, be provisional only. His powers will in future be shared with the Complaints Board. If indeed the police authorities' responsibilities are to remain undiminished, it seems essential that they should be put into the same position in regard to chief officers and the Complaints Boards as, in the past, they have been in relation to chief officers.
In another place the Minister felt that it was an objection that a national body, such as the new Complaints Board, should have to supply information to the various police authorities. There may be room for discussion, I agree, as to the kind of information to be supplied. It may be that in the case of some specific designations it would not be reasonable to expect information to be so supplied. It may be that this clause could be better drafted. The Minister, in another place, indicated that she would think further about the various points which had been raised in the debate there, and I do not know what the results of her further considerations were.
In brief, the object of this new clause is to re-enact in the Bill the police authorities' continuing right to such information as is necessary to enable them to fulfil their statutory responsibilities, both from chief police officers and from the Complaints Board, so far as that is necessary, to provide them with the information that they have received before. Without that information, it seems difficult to expect them to fulfil these statutory responsibilities. I submit that the Complaints Board and the new procedures change the situation from the point of view of police authorities in obtaining information.
If the Government do not like this new clause I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us how provision is going to be made in the Bill, as I think it ought to be made, to ensure that the information that the police authorities require to fulfil their statutory responsibilities is going to be available to them in the future exactly as it has in the past. I beg to move.
6.38 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Viscount has rightly said that this point occupied a substantial amount of time in another place. He is quite right in saying that we have spent a great deal of time in considering the role of the police authorities. As he knows, and indeed has said, it is quite right that police authorities would like to have a much more significant role in these arrangements than are conferred upon them in the Bill. He knows why it has not been possible to agree with them on this course of action which they have advocated with such diligence.
The noble Viscount says —and he puts this forward as the central argument for his Amendment —that there is going to be a significant change in the decision making power of a chief officer of police so far as the discipline of his force is concerned once this Board is set up. Clearly, there is some truth in that. But I would put to him that there is no significant change in the position of the police authorities. I have already indicated that all cases will be referred to the Board where it is decided by the deputy chief constable that it is not found desirable, or necessary, to bring disciplinary proceedings against a particular officer. There will also be cases
858
which go to the Board, where the deputy chief constable decides that he is going to take disciplinary action against a particular police officer, where the Board will have to determine whether it is appropriate to set up a tribunal.
In these two matters the Board will have a clear position and I would not want to minimise that in any way. However, that does not, with respect, change the position of the police authority. The police authority have never been responsible for dealing with individual cases affecting individual officers. As I indicated when we were discussing an earlier Amendment, it has been made clear on a number of occasions that it is undesirable that police authorities should have that power. As the noble Viscount will be aware, they have a special position in terms of dealing with assistant chief constables, deputies and chief constables but not, so far as individual cases are concerned, with any other officer, although the chief constable is of course under some obligation to keep his authority informed as to what is happening in the force, and that will of course continue to be the situation.
I must emphasise that there is no change at all so far as Section 50 of the 1964 Act is concerned. Indeed, I would add that we have, as a result of the representations which have been made to us by police authorities, increased the role of police authorities in a number of respects and will, with permission, itemise those.
Viscount AMORY: It would be very helpful if the noble Lord would itemise those respects. Might there not be instances in the future where the police authority would like some information, would get in touch with, say, the chief constable, and the chief constable might say, "I cannot tell you now because it is not only for me; the Complaints Board now come into it, so perhaps you had better get in touch with them "? I cannot quite see whether the police authorities would have any right under the Bill to get in touch with the Complaints Board. That is the kind of uncertainty that I have in mind.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for making that point. Following his invitation, I will go through the particular

859
details that I was about to give, and then I will return to the point that he has just made. As a result of the discussions which we have had with the police authorities, we have introduced a number of Amendments to the Bill. Clause 8(2) was introduced as a Government Amendment and it enables the Board to report to the Secretary of State — this is a very important requirement — on any grave issue coming to their notice in the course of their work and a copy of any such report will be sent to the police authority and the chief officer concerned. This point arose at a meeting which I had with the representatives of the local authority associations, and I said to them that we would agree to that because they took the view, I think rightly, that a matter of that sort should be drawn to their attention, and it will be.
There is then Clause 8(5), which requires the Board to send to each police authority a copy of their annual report, together with any statistical or other general information relating to the relevant police area for the year in question which the Board consider should be brought to the authority's attention in connection with their functions under Section 50 of the 1964 Act. Thirdly, current Home Office advice to chief officers —this is primarily paragraphs 18 and 19 of Circular 108/72 —on the information to be supplied to police authorities in connection with their responsibilities under Section 50, will be revised in consultation with police authority representatives to take account of the activities of the Board. That is obviously necessary. Fourthly, and highly important, no regulations will be made under the Bill —we were talking about a regulation on an earlier Amendment —relating to complaints and the activities of the Board without full consultation with the Police Advisory Board, on which of course the local authority associations are represented. Thus, there is absolutely no desire on our part to minimise the role of the police authorities, and indeed in these particular respects we have done our best to enhance their role.
Where I probably part company most sharply with the noble Viscount is in connection with the power which he proposes to confer under subsection (2) of the new clause, which says:
860
"It shall be the duty of the Police Complaints Board and any Chief Officer of Police to furnish on request to the Secretary of State or any police authority any information or documentation required by them in the exercise of their duties under this Act."
As I have sought to point out, we have a clear situation at the moment. Police authorities are not involved in individual complaints. ff one had a power of that sort, an authority could require the Board to give information on an individual case and I am bound to say that I think that that would, first of all, create a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy, which we are all anxious to avoid, and, secondly, would very substantially confuse the relationship between the chief officer of police and his police authority.
As I indicated earlier —and this is becoming something of a cliché in this debate —although it is clear that nearly everybody disagrees with everybody else on this Bill, the one thing that has been quite constant has been the anxiety of the police organisations to maintain the existing relationship of police authorities with chief constables and not to broaden the base of that, and I think that there would be some degree of anxiety if we were to move in that direction. For the reasons I have indicated, I hope that the noble Viscount will not push the new clause, and certainly I think there is no risk, if he does not push it, that the same fate will befall him as befell General Custer.
Viscount AMORY: I cannot remember what that fate was, and my noble friend Viscount Monck has left the Chamber. I was not expecting the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to take issue with subsection (2) of the proposed new clause and I would remind him that when it refers to " any information or documentation ", it goes on to say "required by them in the exercise of their duties ". When moving the new clause, I said that there was some information that obviously would not be needed by them to carry out their functions under the Bill. I agree with what the noble Lord said about police authorities not falling into the responsibility of dealing with a single individual case but with general information.
The noble Lord said that the Government had agreed that certain things should be done. That will be helpful and if I do

861
not press the Amendment I suppose I must accept the noble Lord's absolutely categorical statement that in his opinion and that of the Government the provisions of the Bill will not diminish the statutory responsibilities which fall on police authorities. I moved my new clause because the advice I had received was that the provisions were likely to diminish those responsibilities, but of course it is difficult for me to say to the noble Lord that he and his advisers are completely wrong over this.
If it is their intention that the powers will not be diminished, then those powers need not be diminished. However, we should still have preferred to have had this spelled out in the Bill. I attach importance to what the noble Lord says. I know that he does not make these statements lightheartedly. In view of the fact that he has stated that the statutory responsibilities of the police authorities will not be diminished by the provisions of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

RESALE PRICES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bill, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

HEROIN ADDICTS REGISTER
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the maximum and the minimum number of persons on the register of heroin addicts in the past three years.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is not possible to give the maximum and minimum number of notified heroin addicts during any particular period because no running total of the number of addicts is kept. The number of addicts known to the Home Office to be receiving heroin either alone or in combination with other drugs at 31st December 1975 was 316; the figures at the end of 1973 and 1974 were 378 and 392 respectively.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.