Sitting of 9 November 1976

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

  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

  ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the Anglian Water Authority Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    BAOR (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to visit the British Army of the Rhine.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to visit British troops stationed in West Germany.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the near future.
    Mr. Dykes: When, in due course, the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to visit BAOR, will he explain that now that Germany is considering separate loan facilities for this country to rescue the Government apart from the IMF facility, everything will be all right and the Government will not have to pull our forces out of NATO? Indeed, did he not say that to the German Defence Minister last week?
    Mr. Mulley: It is not through lack of courage that I have not visited BAOR. Indeed, I have had the great pleasure of visiting BAOR on previous occasions. It is all a matter of time. If the hon. Gentleman will assist me with a "pair", perhaps that will facilitate the arrangements. It would not be appropriate to discuss the financing of our troops in BAOR. I wish to make clear that we have no plans to withdraw our forces, but we need to make it clear to our allies that substantial foreign exchange costs are involved.
    Mr. Cronin: Nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend visits BAOR will he take the opportunity to talk to his counterpart in the German Government and make clear what an intolerable burden is involved in our support costs as a result of the devaluation of the pound and the revaluation of the mark? Is it not high time that Germany took some effective action to reduce that burden?
    Mr. Mulley: I had the opportunity of meeting the German Defence Minister, Herr Leber, 10 days ago, and I expect to receive him at a NATO meeting in London next week. I made clear our difficulties—though I did not quite use the language adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin).
    Mr. Neubert: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Anglo-German tank featured in discussions with the German Defence Minister? What progress is being made on this joint project, and was Chobham armour a factor in discussions?
    Mr. Mulley: No, we did not discuss Chobham armour. One of the great problems in producing tanks for the Alliance is that the time scale between our requirements is so different. We are not replacing Chieftain until the end of the next decade. The urgent need of the Germans is to find a replacement of the M48 tank, beginning in a couple of years, and the Americans will soon want to replace some of their older tanks. Therefore, studies of the future main battle tank have been taking place. This will not happen until the next generation of weapons, and therefore the problem is not imminent.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he next meets his German opposite number he will raise the matter of Chobham armour? Is it true that we shall obtain no commercial advantage from the Americans or the Germans by letting them have the secret of this armour, and that they are not willing to give any quid pro quo either in terms of continuing the joint battle tank or in purchasing our guns?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not know that there is any need to discuss the arrangements made by the previous Administration for making the Chobham armour available. It is customary within NATO for this information to be exchanged. Under no circumstances would we make tanks for another NATO country—nor would they make them for us. Even if there were a standard tank, the production would be in Germany or the United States, as the case may be. The ques-
    190
    tion of the replacement of our tank, as I said earlier, will not arise for at least another 10 to 12 years.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Without in any way apologising for what the last Government did, which I think was right, or, indeed, criticising what was done by the previous Government, which I also think was right, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the first information about Chobham armour was given in 1965, and certainly a great deal of information was given in 1968 or 1969?
    Mr. Mulley: Without notice I cannot give the precise dates, but it is right for all allies to co-operate to increase the maximum strength of the Alliance.

    BAOR (Spares and Training Facilities)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the present spares position for BAOR; and what are the current restrictions on petrol and ammunition for training purposes for the Army and RAF, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): Temporary shortages have occurred from time to time in the past but I am satisfied there are no general shortages of spares in BAOR at present. Current restrictions on the use of fuel and ammunition are not impairing Army and RAF training programmes.
    Mr. Hastings: In spite of what he has said, does the hon. Gentleman realise that to keep the Army short of ammunition and training facilities of this sort is damaging to morale as well as to efficiency? Will he look into the matter again? Does he recognise that those of us who take an interest in these matters will do our best to ensure that he keeps up to the mark?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am always happy to investigate any incident that the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends wish to draw to my attention. I repeat the assurance that I gave a moment ago. Clearly, we would always like to be able to give

    191
    the forces in Germany the maximum amount of training facilities. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that certain types of missile and certain forms of sophisticated equipment make it an expensive matter.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is there not a spares problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous diversity of weapons used by each member of the Alliance? Does he recognise that every model of tank has a different weapon and a different engine, and that they all need different spares? What is being done to standardise these spares and weapons?
    Dr. Gilbert: With respect, I do not think that the picture is quite as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman painted, although there is always scope for improvement in the standardisation of NATO weapons and weapon systems. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tanks in particular, I am sure that he will recognise that the British tank gun is widely used within NATO forces. My right hon. Friend and his opposite number in the United States, Secretary Rumsfeld, are particularly keen to make as much progress as possible in this direction.
    Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that at a time when we are finding many Conservative Members calling for cuts in public expenditure it is extremely important that economies should be made in this sphere? Is he aware that we should strongly support more far-reaching economies being made in BAOR?
    Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend will be aware that substantial economies were made as a result of the 1975 defence review.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I must declare an interest, as I have two sons who are serving. Will the Minister reconsider what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) in his answer? Will he tell the House how many hours a Chieftain tank can be exercised in a year? Will he tell us for how many hours helicopters are allowed to fly and how many anti-tank missiles are allowed to be fired? What is the amount of training that is allowed to be carried out by BAOR?
    192
    In opposition to what the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has said, it is of the utmost importance that Britain should have adequate defence to fulfil its NATO rôle, which it is not doing at present.
    Dr. Gilbert: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's proposition that it is important for both BAOR and RAF Germany to have adequate training facilities. The level of training that is required is an operational matter, on which my right hon. Friend and I take advice from the Chiefs of Staff. As I said in answer to the Question, I am advised that current restrictions on the use of fuel and ammunition are not impairing training progress for either of the Services.

    BAOR (Offset Arrangements)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement on British forces in Germany on television on 25th October, he will now set a time limit for the conclusion of an agreement for adequate offset arrangements by the West German Government.
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now able to report on his discussions with the West German Government on a new offset agreement on the BAOR.
    Mr. Mulley: Our discussions with the Federal German Government are continuing. We have made it clear that we are looking for a substantial German contribution towards the cost of stationing British forces in Germany and that we hope to find an early solution to the problem. I cannot say when this will be, but I do not think it would be helpful to set a time limit.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the Prime Minister's forceful comments, which proved effective in scaring the German Government into providing us with loan arrangements, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to follow that up by putting the screw on and saying to the German Government "Now pay up, or else"?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is completely accurate.

    193
    My right hon. Friend was certainly not intending to scare anyone. I do not think that we should reach the best conclusion if I were to adopt exactly the tactics that my hon. Friend suggested. I stress, as I did on a previous occasion in the House, that we attach the utmost importance to reaching a satisfactory outcome to the problem.
    Mr. Goodhew: Although the Prime Minister's remarks may not have been intended to scare anybody, they certainly scared our Allies in NATO. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the word that was on everyone's lips in Germany was "blackmail"? That is not an attractive word to attach to a British Prime Minister.
    Mr. Mulley: A short while ago I was in Germany talking to the Minister of Defence, and that was not a word on his lips. I think that he may count a little more in these matters than some of the Germans with whom the hon. Gentleman was immediately in contact.
    Mr. Atkins: Is it not time that Germany was scared into coming to a decent offset agreement? Negotiations have been proceeding for over 12 years without a suitable agreement being reached. Is he aware that a substantial part of our balance of payments deficit occurs in this area, and that if we brought home the British Army of the Rhine we should provide extra employment for British civilians, bearing in mind the 30,000 or more German civilians that are involved?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot see how bringing home the British Army of the Rhine would increase employment in Britain. As I have said, it is not our intention to do that. The Prime Minister was concerned to put the facts clearly before the British people and our friends and Allies in NATO. He wanted to make clear the substantial costs in foreign exchange that our valued commitment to NATO represents.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the reputed massive contribution of West Germany towards the loan arrangements now being made for this country as part of the offset agreement, or as something entirely separate?
    Mr. Mulley: As I thought I had made clear, we have not reached an offset
    194
    agreement in the current year. It may well be that other considerations than the exact offset of BAOR will come into the reckoning.
    Mr. Powell: If the pound is floating, is it not the case that there is no economic difference between foreign exchange costs and any other costs?
    Mr. Mulley: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's erudition, but I think he understands that if we have a foreign exchange deficit it must be financed by borrowing from foreign countries.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of a time limit for the new offset agreement? Surely we can no longer afford it. The Germans should be told plainly that that is the position. We should take up what the Prime Minister said and tell them plainly that if they are not prepared to pay for them we shall pull the forces out of Germany.
    Mr. Mulley: I do not happen to think that that would necessarily be the best course for achieving the result that we want. I must make it clear to the House that, happily, the conduct of the negotiations does not rest with the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to repair the damage done to the morale of our forces by the Prime Minister's appalling broadcast and by the Government's continual cuts in defence?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not accept that the troops are in a sad state of morale. Whilst in my present office I have seen a number of units and I do not think it would be right to say that morale is bad. There is a great deal to be said for candour, and that was the characteristic of my right hon. Friend's television programme.

    British Forces in Europe
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what savings would be made in his Vote if British forces in Europe were withdrawn and disbanded.
    Mr. Mulley: No such assessment has been made.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend proceed to make such an assessment? Is it not desirable to know the facts so that we could recognise, for example, what the consequence would be if BAOR were withdrawn and maintained or withdrawn and disbanded? Such information would be valuable. The knowledge that my right hon. Friend was looking into these matters would be salutary in Germany.
    Mr. Mulley: As I have said, it is not the intention or desire to withdraw our forces from Germany. Secondly, at a time when, rightly, I am urged to make substantial reductions in defence expenditure, I am reluctant to indulge in an exercise of accountancy which would entail a lot of man hours when I do not see the need for it. In any event, we should need to keep some of the forces, not least because of our commitment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that two can play at the Prime Minister's game, and that the United States and Germany are unlikely to give support to sterling if we threaten to tear down the Alliance by withdrawing BAOR?
    Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to trespass into areas which I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer to keep for himself.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the British balance of payments problem is less severe than that of France? Will he make it plain to the West German Government that we shall have to follow France's example and withdraw a portion of our troops unless there is an adequate offset agreement to help us bear the foreign exchange burden?
    Mr. Mulley: Our substantial contribution in foreign exchange, not only through BAOR but through our other NATO commitments, is well known, and I hope and believe that a solution will be found.
    Mr. Onslow: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be more robust in his answers to such questions and tell his friends from the Tribune Group that he has not made such an assessment, because only the professional disarmers would
    196
    want to see British forces withdrawn and the Alliance collapse? Why cannot he tell them to get lost?
    Mr. Mulley: If the unhappy day ever came when the hon. Gentleman had responsibility at this Dispatch Box, I would expect him to make the answers that he wished to make. While I have the responsibility, I shall answer Questions in my own way.
    Mr. Freud: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could effect an instant saving by releasing from the RAF a constituent of mine who has written to him seven times in the last year, during which he has done nothing except be promoted?
    Mr. Mulley: I must confess that I am not familiar with that particular problem, but I shall make it my business to acquaint myself with it during the afternoon.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the recruitment activities of the three Services.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he remains satisfied with recruitment to Her Majesty's forces.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Yes, in so far as the recruiting needs of the Services in terms of quality and quantity are generally being met. There is, of course, always likely to be some room for improvement in terms of increased rationalisation and efficiency, and I am anxious to ensure that, wherever possible, such improvements will be made.
    Mr. Woodall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What progress has been made towards the possible combining of the work of the careers information offices of the three Services? Does my hon. Friend agree that such a combination might bring a saving in terms of duplicated expenditure?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I believe that the co-location of the information offices could bring about a significant saving in

    197
    defence expenditure. In the 10 years since it was first decided to try to co-locate, we have done so in 57 cases, and we review the position regularly to see whether, on the expiration of leases on any of the three Services information offices, further progress can be made. Particular attention is being given to the question of co-location of the Army and naval recruiting services in Barnsley, near my hon. Friend's constituency, for example.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that whatever pressures are put on him by the Tribune group he will continue to do what is necessary to keep up the level of recruitment for the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Irrespective of Opposition pressures put upon the Government to change their policy, we shall continue to try to bring about the economic recovery of the United Kingdom in order that we can sustain all our commitments. I can tell the House that, despite the knocking remarks of Opposition Members when they go round the country complaining about the state of Great Britain, we are maintaining our recruitment requirements quite adequately, as we have done over the past two years.
    Mr. Clemitson: What is the Government's attitude to visits to schools by members of the Armed Forces, particularly in regard to allowing and, indeed, encouraging, the use of rifles by schoolchildren?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend will bring to my attention any particular case that he is concerned about I shall have it investigated, but it is the desire of the Secretary of State and myself that young people at school should have all possible information made available to them about a career in the Armed Forces, and that it should be specifically drawn to their attention that enlistment in the Armed Forces opens up an honourable, exciting and worthwhile career.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In the context of recruiting, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the suggestion that the names of individual officers and men who are employed on rendering bombs safe in Northern Ireland should be published
    198
    whenever Press releases are made about these events, in order to give recognition to their work?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall bring that suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for his advice on the security aspects, as there may be reasons why it should not be done.

    Naval Forces
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied that the number of major surface combatants larger than a destroyer, expected to be fully available to the operational fleet in the next few months, is adequate for the Royal Navy to be able to perform its tasks.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Trotter: Does the hon. Gentleman confirm that, apart from the tank landing ship HMS "Fearless", which has no defensive weapons, there will have been a period this year when the only large warship in service with the Royal Navy was the cruiser HMS "Tiger"? Is it not an astonishing feat to have only one vessel of any size in the Royal Navy for the first time in history? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no further cuts in the strength of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Duffy: The major surface ships that will be operational in the next few months are HMS "Hermes", HMS "Tiger" and HMS "Fearless". The hon. Gentleman's deep knowledge of naval matters will make him understand my confidence that we have the number and size of ships to meet our commitments. I assure the House that the Royal Navy will continue to be in a position to meet its national and NATO commitments.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government carry out their policy of declaring an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles around our coasts we shall need a lot of ships not bigger than destroyers but smaller than destroyers, in view of the policing duties involved?
    Mr. Duffy: Yes. I have informed the House of the position on previous occasions, notably during an Adjournment

    199
    debate. The first of the Island class of patrol boats, designed specifically for this purpose, will become operational during the current year, and by the end of next year all will be in service. In addition, from 1st January, four Nimrods will also be available for this purpose, and for inshore purposes the Bird class patrol boats will be available. This is in addition to what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office provide.
    Mr. Younger: Because of the shortage of these vessels the Royal Navy has already been unable to meet its commitments this year. Did it not have to use British Rail ferries to take British troops to Norway? Was not that an extremely unsound operational thing to do? Will the hon. Gentleman see that it does not happen again?
    Mr. Duffy: In September, Marines and Army personnel were transported to Norway by commercial operators for the NATO "Teamwork" exercise. Despite the reduction in specialised reinforcement shipping as a result of the defence review, there is still available HMS "Hermes", in her secondary rôle, and the LSLs will be sufficient for many years to come to meet our requirements, supplemented, if necessary, from commercial resources under long-standing arrangements.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of one multi-rôle combat aircraft.
    Dr. Gilbert: The estimated unit production costs at the economic conditions and exchange rates applying to the 1977–78 Estimates are £6·34 million for the common strike version and £7·72 million for the air defence variant.
    Mr. Canavan: How many of these aircraft are to be eventually delivered? What possible justification is there for such extravagant and rising expenditure on such lethal instruments, particularly at a time when the Government are cutting back on essential expenditure on education, housing, health, social work and food subsidies?
    Dr. Gilbert: The total number of aircraft contemplated for provision to the air forces of Italy, the Federal Republic
    200
    of Germany and the United Kingdom is 809.
    My hon. Friend is quite light in saying that there has been a substantial increase in cost, but it amounts to only about 40 per cent. in real terms. Considering that the development has taken place over a period of seven years, and relates to an extremely sophisticated piece of equipment, the figure is really relatively low for a project of this complexity.
    Mr. Pattie: Will the Minister confirm that the substance known as titanium sponge which goes into the MRCA is being purchased from the Soviet Union, on the ground that it is actually cheaper to obtain it there than from a manufacturer in Britain? Is this not a ridiculous state of affairs?
    Dr. Gilbert: I do not know whether it is ridiculous for the Germans to be buying it or for the Russians to be supplying it, but I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. It is being bought not for parts manufactured in this country but for parts manufactured in the Federal Republic of Germany.
    I ought, Mr. Speaker, to correct an answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) the other day. I unwittingly misled him when I said that about 35 per cent. of the titanium was coming from these sources. It is of the order of 50 per cent.
    Mr. Watt: As long as we are talking about the economics of operating aircraft, does the Minister agree that to use Nimrod for the purpose of the surveillance of fishing limits is a bit wasteful? Should not the Minister be ordering Jetstream aircraft from Scottish Aviation Ltd., so that people may be kept in their jobs?
    Dr. Gilbert: This is a proposal that has not been put to me before. I shall be happy to look at it, as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, but it runs a little wide of the original Question.
    Mr. Dalyell: If there were to be a separate Scottish air force, who exactly would do the servicing of the Nimrod squadron, based at Lossiemouth?
    Dr. Gilbert: That is a question with which I am glad that I have yet to

    201
    wrestle. I do not propose to tax my poor mind with it at this stage.

    Service Personnel (Children's Education)
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will curtail expenditure on special allowances made to enable the children of members serving in the Armed Forces to attend fee-paying schools, in the interests of Her Majesty's Government's policy on comprehensive education.
    Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. My primary concern is with the interests of the Armed Forces, and I am satisfied that the educational needs of their children in the special circumstances of Service life could not be met if reliance were placed only on the limited boarding school facilities available within the maintained system.
    Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the necessity for providing boarding school accommodation for the children of parents who are likely to be posted at short notice, but does the Secretary of State not accept that the policy of dispatching such children to private fee-paying schools is in contradiction to the Government's comprehensive policy? Will he not, therefore, utilise the boarding schools provided by local authorities for this purpose?
    Mr. Mulley: As far as I am aware, a considerable number of Service men send their children to the boarding schools maintained by local authorities, but there are very few such schools. It would not be a matter for me, but certainly it would be a complete change of policy for many local authorities, and the cost would be considerable if, as I would naturally prefer, comprehensive boarding schools were to be available for all the children concerned. At the moment they are not.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: How many children of parents in the Armed Forces are at fee-paying boarding schools and how many are at boarding schools maintained by local authorities?
    Mr. Mulley: I could not give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures without notice, but if he will put down a Question
    202
    I shall certainly seek to give him the figures.

    BAOR (Forces Levels)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to withdraw British troops from their NATO assignment in Germany.
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the level of British forces in West Germany.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to reduce the strength of BAOR.
    Mr. Mulley: In accordance with our Brussels Treaty commitments, we maintain land forces of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the mainland of Europe. These forces have a key rôle to play in the forward defence strategy of the Alliance and we have no plans to reduce them in advance of mutual and balanced force reductions.
    Mr. Tebbit: Then what on earth was the Prime Minister blabbering about in his stupid "Panorama" broadcast a couple of weeks ago?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not regard that as being a proper question concerning the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that the House appreciates that the Prime Minister was, for both home and overseas consumption, putting the facts on the record, namely, that a substantial part of our overseas indebtedness is due to the stationing of our forces overseas in this way.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall not have a strong defence if we have a weak economy, and that it is reasonable for the Government to put the proposition to the German Government that, with their large reserves and in view of our financial difficulties, they should make a larger contribution to the maintenance of our troops in Germany.
    Mr. Mulley: As I understood it, that was the message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was seeking to convey—that it is not just a British or German problem but an Alliance problem.
    Mr. Dow: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is more to the level and strength of British forces in Germany than the difficulties of our economy? Does he understand that the maintenance of the full 55,000 British troops in Germany is crucial to the security of this country?
    Mr. Mulley: I accept, as I have said many times, that our commitment to NATO is an essential part of the defence of this country. That is why we have not indicated any plans to withdraw from that commitment. But, of course, it involves an expenditure in deutschemarks in Germany, and if we are not able to borrow the necessary foreign currency we are in difficulties.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that the French Government have recently decided to withdraw 10,000 of their 60,000 troops from Germany, and that they have given financial difficulties as a reason? If the French can withdraw their troops, why cannot we, since our financial situation is far more difficult than theirs?
    Mr. Mulley: There are two or three very important reasons why our position is different from that of France. First, we have a treaty commitment. We are the only country with a treaty commitment in this regard. Secondly, although I am happy to say that they work very closely with the NATO forces, the French forces are not part of the NATO integrated forces. As far as I am aware, the French Government have never had any offset arrangements of the sort that we were discussing a little earlier this afternoon.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Secretary of State will recall that the Prime Minister's exact words were that there could come a situation when we must put our own interests first. How is keeping the British Army on the Rhine up to strength not putting our own interests first?
    Mr. Mulley: I think that the use of a textual criticism based on a short extract from an interview is not a successful way of conducting questions and answers. I have made it clear that I regard it as in our interests that our forces should stay in Germany, but naturally it is also in our interests that we should be able to pay the costs involved—not least the wages of the German civilians who give our forces such excellent support.
    Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    TAVR Recruitment
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the level of recruitment to the sponsored units of the TAVR; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Sponsored units have benefited from this year's upsurge in recruiting, although not to the same extent as the independent units. There is room for improvement, and the situation is kept under careful review.
    Mr. Pattie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sponsored units of the TAVR are 4,000 below strength on an establishment of 12,000? Will not he consider making a one-year tour of duty with the Reserve a requirement for a soldier ending his Regular tour of duty?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that that would alter the situation. To quote from the hon. Gentleman's own pamphlet, these are units which are composed entirely of key specialists who do the same jobs in the Army as they do in civilian life. That being so, clearly it is much more difficult recruiting in the sponsored units than it is in the independent units.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the TAVR is a very efficient way of maintaining a reserve of manpower at an economic cost, but that there is some concern about training facilities and their cost, especially in Germany?
    Mr. Brown: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. The TAVR plays a most important part in the defence of this country. That is all the more reason why I am so pleased that recruitment went up so well last year. As for training, I do not think that my hon. Friend need be too apprehensive, because, every year, we send up to 12,000 TAVR men to train in Germany.
    Mr. Kershaw: I agree with the Minister that the TAVR is well recruited and efficient, but will he consider increasing the numbers of TAVR, perhaps to be set off against a reduction in our Regular reserves, who are still liable but who, after a few years, have no training at all?
    Mr. Brown: At present, the independent units of the TAVR are about 87 per cent. recruited. Clearly, we have some way to go in recruiting. Nevertheless, in terms of the sponsored units, where there are shortages, these would not impair efficiency, because our practice would be to top up with Regular reservists.

    Nuclear Test
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence to which weapon programmes the recent nuclear test was related.
    Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to the report that I gave my hon. Friend on 12th October 1976.
    Miss Richardson: With respect to my right hon. Friend, that is a non-answer. The answer that I got before was also a non-answer in that sense, because it was a matter of routine testing of nuclear weapons. Why cannot this House be given more information? Why is there so much secrecy surrounding these matters? Other countries, such as France and West Germany, have much information given to them about weapons programmes, which we seem unable to get.
    Mr. Mulley: It has never been the practice of successive Governments to give details of nuclear test programmes. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the West German Government do not have nuclear weapons. As far as I am aware, the French Government give no more prior information on their tests than we do.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition agreed when the Government carried out the recent test, and will he confirm that it is Government policy to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear defence?
    Mr. Mulley: It is our policy to maintain the effectiveness of our deterrent. But I repeat the assurance given by my predecessor that we are not concerned to develop a new generation of weapons or,
    206
    as is sometimes argued, to add a MIRV capability to our existing weapons.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: If we are not developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, until what time and at what cost will the present generation be effective?
    Mr. Mulley: It is not possible to give an exact date. But it is necessary that the weapons be refurbished from time to time, and this is the course on which we are engaged.

    Chieftain Tank
    Mr. John Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the performance of the Chieftain tank.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the answer given by his right hon. Friend earlier and enlarge upon the question whether the Chobham armour was given away free to our allies? Will be also say whether British tank gun technology will be given a fair opportunity to prove itself in the trials for the new American and German tanks?
    Mr. Brown: The information on the Chobham armour was given to two allies, as is customary in an alliance. As for British tank units, I would say that the 120mm Chieftain gun is the finest tank gun in the world, and we have no intention of replacing it on the Chieftain. But in the gun trials in America this year we shall certainly have every opportunity to get in on the new weapons.
    Mr. Wall: Is it a fact that Chieftain tanks being supplied to Iran are to have new engines and Chobham armour? If so, when will these be fitted to British Chieftain tanks in the Army of the Rhine?
    Mr. Brown: There is a later Question on that subject.
    Mr. Hardy: As for the Chobham armour, which was the subject of the story that appeared in The Sunday Times at the weekend, will my hon. Friend invite the Opposition Front Bench to explain to the House and to the country why they so carelessly gave away secrets that could be extremely valuable?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure the Opposition will have heard that suggestion from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister do the House the courtesy of reminding the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) that if he had been in the Chamber when this matter came up earlier he would have heard it explained that the first exchange was in 1965 and the second in 1968? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that he wishes to see full and fair competition, which gives us the best possible chance of keeping in this tank business, with our excellent capabilities?
    Mr. Brown: Of course, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his remarks. But he talks about 1965 and 1968. Although there certainly was an exchange—a discussion—no detailed information was given before 1972.

  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a transcript of his "Panorama" broadcast on economic policy on 25th October.
  Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of his "Panorama" broadcast on economic policy on 25th October.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I did so on 26th October.
  Mr. Roberts: The Prime Minister said that he was in favour of sustainable growth. If it is clear—as it probably is and has been for some time to the Prime Minister—that we cannot get this growth without reducing public expenditure, is he not failing the country now by postponing the reduction in public expenditure to future years?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the levels of public expenditure. We have to ensure that they do not clash with the requirements of private industry for investment. There are ample funds at present available in the banks for borrowing. The problem that we all have to deal with, as was recognised in the
  208
  Conservative Party's own document, is that of overcoming inflation. That will encourage investment more than anything else.
  Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government adopt the same attitude of constructive and reasoned firmness in their dealings with the IMF as he showed in his "Panorama" broadcast, and that if he resists the imposition of any further devaluation or deflation, he will be assured of the widest support from the Government Benches?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly I do not expect any support from the Opposition, who have been consistently and continually misrepresenting what I said on "Panorama", both in its intent and in its meaning. It is about time that we had a little honesty from the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Neubert: Does the Prime Minister recall that in that interview he said that he would fight on if he had half a chance, and that to have lost two out of three Labour seats last Thursday gives him rather less than half a chance? Would not it be a better response to the nation's needs to give the British people an early chance to choose an alternative Government?
  The Prime Minister: The plain truth is that until the Tory Opposition spell out their policies their return would be an unmitigated disaster for the British people. The only ambition that the Opposition have is to rule and then to divide. The biggest monument that they have ever left on our Statute Book is the Industrial Relations Act.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of some of the interpretations that have been put upon last week's by-elections, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the Conservative proportion of the vote in Workington was about 35·8 per cent. of the total electorate and that in Walsall, North the Conservative proportion of the vote was about 22·3 per cent?
  The Prime Minister: I did study the statistics rather carefully and came to the conclusion that—[HON. MEMBERS: "You lost."] Well, we did keep one stump up out of three. The other conclusion I

  209
  came to was one in which I agree entirely with the Conservative Party—that
  "the troubles of our economy are … longstanding and deep-seated. To make the structural changes that are necessary … will need a settled approach over a long, hard haul",
  and that is just what we intend to do.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's present lending rate, coupled with their spending rate, means that the whole economic strategy is in ruins? Now that they have been given the "thumbs down" by the electorate, will the Prime Minister allow the Chancellor—who has never got an economic forecast right—to introduce yet another Budget to correct yet more mistakes?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that
  "forecasts are liable to turn out wildly wrong"—
  that is another quotation from "The Right Approach". [Interruption.] I thought hon. Gentlemen knew that, and if they want to hear more from their own document—there is little sense in being too dogmatic now. I am aware that the right hon. Lady was being rather Goebbelistic in her misdescription on the radio last Friday, when she said that we always left a financial mess. Let us look at the record. In 1970 the Conservatives were left with a balance of payments surplus on current account. In 1973 they left us with a large deficit. In 1970 the Labour Government were repaying debts. In 1973 the Conservatives left us with a deficit of £4½ billion. In 1973—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Yes it is too long for the hon. Gentleman; I know that. In 1973 Lord Barber left us with an increase in the money supply of 28 per cent. The increase in the money supply is now 12½ per cent. Will the right hon. Lady have the decency to withdraw what she said?
  Mrs. Thatcher: Not to a—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was listened to. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the right hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Not to a Prime Minister who has done what he has done to the British pound, or to a Government
  210
  who have done what this Government have done to the British pound overseas. Will the Prime Minister answer my question? As Prime Minister of a Government who have had record inflation and unemployment and have put record debt around the necks of future generations, does he intend to change the economic strategy that is bringing this country to disaster, or will he carry on with higher taxation at home and higher humiliation abroad?
  The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Lady does not have the decency to admit that she was totally misleading people on the radio last Friday morning. Even in the euphoria of victory she should have some respect for the truth. I demand that the right hon. Lady withdraw her remarks. [Interruption.] If she will not do so, now that the facts have been pointed out, we shall all know what value to place on her future utterances on these matters. As to the existing situation, the British people are
  "sceptical of short-term instant solutions"—
  [Interruption.] That is another quote from "The Right Approach". I find that I cull most of my best answers from that document. The trouble is that Opposition Members do not seem to like the quotations when I give them. We intend to pursue with consistency our long-term aims. I hope that the right hon. Lady will now withdraw her remarks.
  Mrs. Thatcher: With this kind of Prime Minister and that kind of reply I do not wonder that he has been rejected at the by-elections.

  ECONOMIC POLICY
  Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Trade, Industry and Scotland in implementing the economic proposals in the Queen's Speech.
  The Prime Minister: Yes.
  Mr. Canavan: As one of the major implementing the proposals in the Queen's Speech is the House of

  211
  Lords, will my right hon. Friend take steps to include in the next Queen's Speech proposals to abolish once and for all this motley collection of medieval barons, political has-beens, ex-Prime Ministers' lap-dogs and ex-Labour renegades who had the cheek to vote against the Third Reading of a Socialist Bill yesterday?
  The Prime Minister: It is quite clear from what has been said and written that, time after time after time, there has been a conspiracy between the Conservative Front Bench in this House and the inbuilt Conservative majority in the House of Lords to defeat legislation that has passed through the House of Commons. We have seen this with legislation on education, which was considered for 160 hours; on tied cottages, which was considered for 64 hours; on health, which was considered for 88 hours; on dock work regulation, which was considered for 140 hours, and on aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation which was considered for no less than 256 hours. Opposition Members are conspiring with the House of Lords to defeat this legislation, and I warn the House of Lords of the consequences.
  Mr. Lawson: Does the Prime Minister realise that the constitutional support of the House of Lords is a great deal less dishonourable than the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire)—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Gentlemen must give me a chance. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw, I hope—[Interruption.] We are all hon. Members of this House and the hon. Gentleman will withdraw any suggestion that a Member is not an honourable man.
  Mr. Lawson: If you wish me to withdraw anything, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly do so.
  The Prime Minister: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) withdrew his remarks. I thought that he would do so. It is our strong view that the House of Lords should recall that its rôle is not that of a wrecking chamber, but of a revising chamber. In recent weeks, it has been wrecking legislation passed by this House.
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime
  212
  Minister to make accusations of conspiracy? When hon. Members in both Houses are honourably doing their duty, it is in order for the Prime Minister to impute dishonourable motives to them? Will you ask him to withdraw?
  Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has made accusations about the Opposition Front Bench and apparently they do not wish to deny them. If they wish to deny what my right hon. Friend said, they should get up and do so.
  Mr. Speaker: It seems that all the excitement I expected yesterday has been postponed. From time to time, general political charges are hurled across the Chamber by both sides. There was nothing in what the Prime Minister said which I could ask him to withdrawn.

  QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, it has been his custom to couple similar Questions if they were among the first 10 tabled for him to answer. Will you please ascertain whether he has changed this custom of batching Questions?
  Mr. Speaker: The coupling of Questions is not a matter within my jurisdiction.
  The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not knowingly changed the practice. If there was a slip-up today, I apologise. I shall look into it.

  QUESTION TIME (QUOTATIONS)
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that during Question Time the Prime Minister appeared to be quoting liberally which, as I am sure you will agree, is not in order during Questions. Was it allowed because you assumed that the right hon. Gentleman had learned the document "The Right Approach" by heart?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to correct something which was said the other day when I

  213
  dealt with quotations at Question Time. The long-standing custom—whoever sits on the Government Benches—has been that Ministers may quote at Question Time but that other hon. Members may not. That is the long-standing custom. It is up to the House to decide whether it wishes to change it.

HOUSE OF LORDS
Mr. Gow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the charge of conspiracy between the Opposition Front Bench and the House of Lords and the constitutional position of the House of Lords."
The Prime Minister made this charge in relation to legislation before the other House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We believe in free speech in this House.
Mr. Gow: The Prime Minister also threatened that there would be serious consequences for another place if it pursued its constitutional duty.
This is a specific matter. It is urgent because there is nothing of greater importance to the constitutional future of this country than that the constitution itself should be observed. Long before we embark on the other matters which stand upon the Order Paper, we ought to discuss the rôle of another place in defending the liberties of the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely:
"the charge of conspiracy between the Opposition Front Bench and the House of Lords and the constitutional position of the House of Lords."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my
214
decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you a more serious matter arising out of the application of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? Is it not a dangerous abuse of the proceedings of the House if, following a statement made by a Minister, an hon. Member can carry on the debate on the Floor of the House on a point raised by a Minister under the suggestion that it has something to do with Standing Order No. 9?
If this were accepted as a precedent, any statement made by a Minister during Question Time could be raised and the argument continued by any hon. Member after Question Time is over, thereby delaying other business. I suggest that action should be taken by you or the Select Committee on Procedure to prevent this abuse of the Standing Order from becoming a permanent feature of our proceedings.
Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I congratulate you on the expeditious way in which you dealt with my hon. Friend's application under Standing Order No. 9? We are totally without need of advice from the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on such matters, especially when it is wholly unfounded and badly based.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that from time to time—not often, but from time to time—hon. Members from all parties have felt obliged, following a ministerial answer, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. The House has appointed me as the guardian of its rights and, though I am conscious that there have been occasions when Standing Order No. 9 has been used in a way which I thought was not wise, I believe that the House needs to be very cautious before it gives up the liberties and rights of its own Members.

URBAN AID (AFFIRMATIVE ACTION)
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore the status of voluntary work by ensuring that a percentage of at least 50 per cent. of each phase of the Urban Aid Programme is apportioned to voluntary and community organisations.
Since Beveridge dreamed up the Welfare State, a continuous rash of social legislation has created expectations, stronger with each succeeding generation, that the Government's job is to solve all our problems. As a result, people have grown conditioned to look to a beneficent State for everything from the proverbial cradle to the grave and hesitate before lifting a finger to help themselves.
For some time it has been evident that the State can no longer cope with the task that it has taken on.
Local authorities now find themselves unable to perform the jobs thrust upon them by Parliament. For example, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970 obliged local authorities to find and help the handicapped. Yet how many authorities have actually put that Act into practice? Insufficient central funds have prevented the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Act.
The Government now forecast an extended period of restraint, and local authorities will be badly hit as funds to run the social and health services are cut back. It is therefore essential that each local authority defines the services that it will run and sets limits beyond which it cannot offer assistance. Local authorities must tailor their services to the resources available and not insist on covering the whole board.
The pruning back of the Welfare State provisions will inevitably result in an increasingly wide area of need emerging, and it is here that voluntary work needs to take over as it provides the most cost effective use of public moneys.
Local authorities should turn to voluntary work in their areas by involving community groups, neighbourhood councils, self-help bodies, tenants' and rate-
216
payers' associations, and the 101 other grass root organisations which abound throughout the country. If they did this, they would get better value for money and things would get done which they themselves can no longer do.
It is already evident that urban aid funds given to such voluntary work organisations go further because such organisations can recruit volunteers and find part-time helpers who work for free, are not forced to pay local government rates where full-time professionals are employed, raise their own money to supplement public funds received, and are free of statutory and union constraints. As a result, administrative costs are kept low.
Voluntary work has taken a knocking. It is often jeered at by its opponents as being synonymous with ladies with large hats doling out gruel, and its status has declined with the encroachment of the Welfare State.
If we are to recruit new volunteers, we must show that personal responsibility can no longer be borne on the State's shoulders and that initiative and self-help must be rewarded.
My Bill will see a resurgence of voluntary work in this country, raise its status, and give it recognition. It will do this by ensuring that voluntary work receives a guaranteed minimum slice of income from the urban aid cake, not just the crumbs. As the economic recession advances, local authorities will be hungry for an even greater share of the urban aid cake. My Bill will also stop local authorities from the temptation of diverting urban aid moneys to prop up their running-down services.
My Bill therefore ensures that no less than 50 per cent. under each of the urban aid capital and revenue phases will be given to voluntary work in each district, so that, when local authorities come to submit their bids to the Home Office, they will know in advance that they should include sufficient applications from the voluntary sector and not just put up their own. The Home Office in turn will be bound to see that voluntary work receives its right quota.
To date, the Government have distributed over £78·3 million through the

217
urban aid programme over the past eight years and issued 15 circulars. For the capital building programmes, the local authorities have cornered 84·1 per cent. of the money made available; voluntary bodies 15·9 per cent. On non-capital recurrent expenditure 56·6 per cent. of the money made available has gone to local authorities and only 43·4 per cent. to voluntary organisations. For non-capital and non-recurrent projects—that is, for expenditure on holiday projects, play schemes and so on—54·3 per cent. has gone to local authorities while 45·7 per cent. has gone to voluntary organisations.
The situation has improved, but it is still solely dependent upon the whim of the local authority to what extent it includes voluntary work bids. By all accounts, as the Chancellor's economic measures make local authorities squeal, they in turn will be less inclined to put in applications for their voluntary organisations.
It should be made plain that I am not proposing further expenditure. On the contrary, I am suggesting that, by redistributing the money available, it will go further.
At the same time, my Bill could result in a considerable number of essential services being continued, even though they will no longer be carried out under the auspices of the local authorities but of the local voluntary organisations, neighbourhood councils and self-help groups.
Voluntary work provides an alternative to State domination in community and social provisions. By ensuring that voluntary work organisations receive a minimum slice of the cake under a programme aimed at improving life in inner city and urban areas, a real change could take place. Affirmative action will ensure that deprivation will be tackled involving the whole community and that an uncharted reservoir of voluntary help will be tapped.
Voluntary work is at the cornerstone of the British way of life and we on the Opposition Benches wish to make sure that it is not snuffed out.
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the motion?
Mr. Ogden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I seek to oppose simply, briefly, and, I hope, clearly.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has succeeded in reversing the normal timetable of the House of Commons over the past few weeks by using the Ten Minutes Rule for a series of Adjournment debates.
Each time the hon. Gentleman has spoken of "My Bill." There is no Bill this time and there has been no Bill any other time on which he has brought up this subject. Even if there were, with the new Session of Parliament starting on 24th November, there would not be time to carry his Bill through into legislation. In other words, the hon. Gentleman raises hopes that he cannot possibly succeed in carrying through. For that reason, it is an abuse of the procedures of the House and we ought to consider whether—
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no interventions during a Ten Minutes Rule discussion on one side or the other.
Mr. Ogden: I will amend that. In my opinion, it is an abuse of the intentions of the procedures of the House. I suggest that it is time that the House of Commons considered whether, if we give a Member leave to introduce a Bill, time should be allocated for the Bill.
This afternoon there is no Bill. Even if there were, there would not be time to have it carried into legislation. For those two reasons alone, we ought to reject the motion.
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 divides: Ayes 188, Noes 234.

Division No. 377.]

AYES

[3.49 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Hall, Sir John

Penhaligon, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Hampson, Dr Keith

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Alison, Michael

Hannam, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Baker, Kenneth

Hawkins, Paul

Prior, Rt Hon James

Banks, Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Beith, A. J.

Hicks, Robert

Raison, Timothy

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Higgins, Terence L.

Rathbone, Tim

Benyon, W.

Holland, Philip

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hooson, Emlyn

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Biggs-Davison, John

Hordern, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Blaker, Peter

Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ridsdale, Julian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Boyson, Or Rhodes (Brent)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Braine, Sir Bernard

James, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Brittan, Leon

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

Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Buck, Antony

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Jopling, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bulmer, Esmond

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Scott, Nicholas

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Kershaw, Anthony

Scott-Hopkins, James

Carlisle, Mark

Kilfedder, James

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Kimball, Marcus

Shepherd, Colin

Channon, Paul

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Shersby, Michael

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kirk, Sir Peter

Silvester, Fred

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Sims, Roger

Clegg, Walter

Knox, David

Sinclair, Sir George

Cockcroft, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Cormack, Patrick

Lawrence, Ivan

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Corrie, John

Lawson, Nigel

Speed, Keith

Costain, A. P.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Spence, John

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Lloyd, Ian

Stanley, John

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McCrindle, Robert

Stokes, John

Drayson, Burnaby

Macfarlane, Neil

Stradling Thomas, J.

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, John

Tapsell, Peter

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Mather, Carol

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Elliott, Sir William

Mawby, Ray

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Eyre, Reginald

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Farr, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Townsend, Cyril D.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Trotter, Neville

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mills, Peter

Tugendhat, Christopher

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Monro, Hector

Viggers, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Montgomery, Fergus

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Wakeham, John

Forman, Nigel

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Freud, Clement

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wall, Patrick

Gilmour, Sir John (East File)

Mudd, David

Walters, Dennis

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neave, Airey

Warren, Kenneth

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Nelson, Anthony

Weatherill, Bernard

Goodhart, Philip

Neubert, Michael

Wells, John

Goodhew, Victor

Newton, Tony

Wiggin, Jerry

Goodlad, Alastair

Onslow, Cranley

Winterton, Nicholas

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Paisley, Rev Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gray, Hamish

Pardoe, John

Mr. Anthony Steen and

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Parkinson, Cecil

Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Grylls, Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Archer, Peter

Bradley, Tom

Clemitson, Ivor

Ashley, Jack

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Cohen, Stanley

Atkinson, Norman

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Buchan, Norman

Concannon, J. D.

Bates, Alf

Buchanan, Richard

Corbett, Robin

Bean, R. E.

Canavan, Dennis

Cowans, Harry

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cant, R. B.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Carmichael, Neil

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Bidwell, Sydney

Carson, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Bishop, E. S.

Carter, Ray

Cronin, John

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Cartwright, John

Cryer, Bob

220

221

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Judd, Frank

Robinson, Geoffrey

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kelley, Richard

Roderick, Caerwyn

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Kinnock, Neil

Rooker, J. W.

Dempsey, James

Lamborn, Harry

Roper, John

Dormand, J. D.

Lamond, James

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rowlands, Ted

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Sedgemore, Brian

Dunn, James A.

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Selby, Harry

Dunnett, Jack

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lipton, Marcus

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Edge, Geoff

Litterick, Tom

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lomas, Kenneth

Sillars, James

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Loyden, Eddie

Silverman, Julius

English, Michael

Luard, Evan

Skinner, Dennis

Ennals, David

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Small, William

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Hugh

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Snape, Peter

Evans, John (Newton)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Spriggs, Leslie

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Stallard, A. W.

Faulds, Andrew

McNamara, Kevin

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Madden, Max

Stoddart, David

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Magee, Bryan

Stott, Roger

Flannery, Martin

Mahon, Simon

Strang, Gavin

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marquand, David

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Swain, Thomas

Ford, Ben

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Forrester, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Meacher, Michael

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Freeson, Reginald

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mendelson, John

Tierney, Sydney

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mikardo, Ian

Tinn, James

George, Bruce

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Torney, Tom

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Urwin, T. W.

Ginsburg, David

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Gould, Bryan

Molloy, William

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Graham, Ted

Molyneaux, James

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

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Moonman, Eric

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Ward, Michael

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Watkins, David

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Watkinson, John

Harper, Joseph

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Weetch, Ken

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Weitzman, David

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Newens, Stanley

Wellbeloved, James

Hatton, Frank

Noble, Mike

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

O'Halloran, Michael

Whitehead, Phillip

Heffer, Eric S.

Orbach, Maurice

Whitlock, William

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Ovenden, John

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Huckfield, Les

Padley, Walter

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Park, George

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hunter, Adam

Parker, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Parry, Robert

Woodall, Alec

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Pavitt, Laurie

Woof, Robert

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Perry, Ernest

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Prescott, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Mr. Eric Ogden and

John, Brynmor

Price, William (Rugby)

Mr. Michael McGuire.

Radice, Giles

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered,
That the matter of North West Affairs be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.—[Mr. Foot.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments considered.

  EDUCATION BILL
    Clause 1

      THE COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, at beginning insert:
      "Without prejudice to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents as provided for in section 76 of the Education Act 1944 and subject to the duty of local education authorities to secure provision of secondary schools sufficient in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes as provided for in section 8 of the Education Act 1944 and"
      4.0 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment has already had a very fair exposure in discussion during about two and a half sittings of our Standing Committee. During the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", the Chairman said:
      "I should remind the Committee that we have had far-reaching debates already on this clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23rd March 1976; c. 766.]
      I spent a large part of the early hours of the morning reading with fascination the words of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) deploying the legal arguments. I admire his Latin, but at the end of reading through all stages of the Bill thus far in the other place and in the House of Commons, I found that there seemed to be little between us on Lords Amendment No. 1.
      It is the Government's view, which has been reiterated time and again, that the amendment merely adds unnecessary wording and that the point which has been argued time and again by the Oppo-
      224
      sition with regard to Sections 8 and 76 of the 1944 Act is effectively dealt with by Clause 12 of the Bill—
      "This Act shall be construed as one with the Education Act 1944."
      Since there has been no question of repealing Section 76, Section 8 or Section 99 of the 1944 Act, this means in practice that local authorities would need to have regard to all three principles.
      For the convenience of the House, let me briefly list those principles. The first is the one connected with Section 76 of the 1944 Act—
      "so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
      That is the wish of the Government also, and it would stand as a requirement to which local education authorities must continue to have regard in all their schemes and plans.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Williams: May I first develop the matter? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have deployed my argument.
      The second general principle to which authorities must have regard is embodied in Section 8 of the 1944 Act, which lays down the duty of local education authorities to secure the provision of primary and secondary schools' which, among other things, meet an adequate range of the needs of pupils of different ages, abilities and aptitudes. I shall not quote that section at length, in order not to-waste the time of the House. I believe that hon. Members interested in these matters will be familiar with it and what it enjoins as duties in this case—not as general principles—upon local education authorities.
      In practice, therefore, what the new Bill does is to lay down a third principle, which is embodied in Clause 1—
      "such education is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude."
      Thus, we are looking at three principles which local authorities must bear

      225
      in mind in all that they do. The Opposition have argued eloquently in both Houses that there could, in practice, be clashes between these principles. We do not accept that argument. We believe that the principles are easily reconcilable by an education authority and that there is no contradiction between them. In a moment or two, I shall explain why I think the difference arises on this matter between the two sides of the House. I do not believe that any difference arises on the continuation of the three principles. It arises on the question whether they are reconcilable.
      I refer back briefly now to the first of the principles, the one concerning the wishes of parents, because I think it important to mention a point which was made on more than one occasion, that the most recent interpretation of what is meant by the relevant section of the 1944 Act was that reached in the case of Wood v. London Borough of Ealing in 1966—that is the most recent case we have—in which the learned judge laid down that the obligation was to consult the wishes of particular parents with regard to their own children and not to consult parents generally. That was borne out, I think, by the hon. Member for Chelmsford when he said in Committee:
      "I do not think that one can generalise about views of parents on a particular category of school as such. What one can give indications of are parents' views on particular schools."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12th February 1976; c. 15.]
      I believe that there is nothing between the hon. Gentleman and myself on the view that the wishes of parents are to be interpreted in terms of particular schools. On that, I support what the hon. Gentleman has said, because it is very much the view of the Government and of my own party that it is important that parents be consulted about the education of their children. Indeed, on later amendments we shall be saying something about the kind of information which, in our view, schools should make available to parents.
      We believe also that choice should be retained within the comprehensive pattern with regard, for example, to such matters as the right of parents to choose a denominational school, if that is what they wish for their children, or in areas where
      226
      it is feasible for the authority to make such provision without excessive public expenditure, to choose between coeducational and single-sex schools. We agree that it is important that schools go out of their way to consult parents with regard to the progress of their children and what they want to see their children take as special courses when the time comes to choose.
      Only very recently, in a statement made by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, there was a direct reference to the right of parents—I quote here what was said in the 1976 programme—
      "Both the community at large and parents in particular have a right to influence and be given greater information about the general environment of the school and the children's classroom experiences".
      Again, I refer the House to the fact that my predecessor set up the Taylor Committee with the following terms of reference:
      "To review the arrangements for the management and government of maintained primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, including the composition and function of bodies of managers and governors and their relationships with local education authorities, with head teachers and staffs of schools, with parents and pupils and with the local community at large; and to make recommendations."
      As those hon. Members particularly interested in education will be well aware, the Taylor Committee has been pressing ahead with its work, especially with regard to the rôle of parents. It is at present considering the possibility of ways of setting out the rights and responsibilities of parents for the education of their children.
      On this matter, therefore, I think that there is no difference among those of us on both sides of the House who are concerned about parents. Where there is a clear breach, however—I think that this breach arises also on the question of reconciliation of the three principles which I have set out—is on what is meant by choice. It was clear from the speeches made in the other place, and some of those made in this House, that many Members of both Houses see choice as being intimately bound up with the processes of selection. They argue that, in practice, the three principles are incompatible because one cannot meet the wishes of parents without a selective

      227
      system. Having carefully read the proceedings in another place, I believe that it was that view and philosophy which coloured many of the speeches made there.
      We cannot accept that view. On the contrary, we have always considered that there was a fundamental clash between the concept of selection on a permanent basis and the true wishes of parents, for within a selective system the right of parents to have their children educated according to their wishes is qualified from the beginning from the fact of selection itself.
      Selection means that the wishes of parents cannot be met if they wish to have their children educated in selective grammar schools when in practice the children do not pass into grammar schools but are allocated to secondary modern schools. I must therefore say directly that as the 1944 Act clarifies the whole principle of parental choice and of the provision of schools by LEAs in the context of the selective system, so, in practice, this Bill clarifies the rights of parents and the context in which local education authorities supply schools within the context of the comprehensive system. There can be no question of the comprehensive system allowing less choice than the selective system. I shall argue that in fact it allows substantially more choice to parents than, by the nature of things, the selective system can.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: I do not follow the Secretary of State's argument. I understand that there has to be some selection by IQ for grammar schools but if the right hon. Lady has her way there will be no choice for parents to send their children to grammar schools. The Secretary of State is contradicting herself.
      Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member makes my point for me. I shall come later to the choice possible within the comprehensive system. The great fallacy of the Opposition is to concentrate on the 20 per cent. for whom choice is operative and not on the 80 per cent. for whom it is not.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: Is not the difference that under the former situation the only real constraint on parental choice was the ability of the child but
      228
      under the present system the constraint is largely that of the Government's own creation?
      Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member is incorrect. A fixed number of places were provided in grammar schools and they were not in any way geared to the number of children who passed the 11-plus who were or were not able to benefit from grammar school education. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members who are interrupting from a sedentary position will have the courage to rise to their feet.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Lady elaborate on the statement that she has just made? On what grounds does she say that the number of places had no bearing on the number of children who could benefit from a grammar school education?
      Mrs. Williams: That was not what I said. The hon. Member should read Hansard and check. I tried to say that the number of places in a grammar school year by year was determined by the number of places in them, not directly by the number of people who passed the 11-plus and were therefore able to benefit, in theory, from a grammar school education. The number of places provided in grammar schools varied immensely from one local authority to another. There was no kind of national standard, whatever Opposition hon. Members may say.
      I shall explain why I believe so strongly that, in practice, for those concerned with parental choice—and there has been much lip service to that concept—comprehensives widen choice very substantially. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] Yes, even parents' choice. Comprehensive schools carry a great many more courses for children. It is unusual for children to be unable, for example, to take an appropriate examination, whether academic or vocational at the age of 16 years in a comprehensive school.
      It was common in the past for secondary modern schools not to mount "O" level or school certificate courses at all. Broadly, it is true that the courses available in comprehensives are wider than those in secondary modern schools. Perhaps hon. Members will argue that that problem was met by the transfer to

      229
      grammar schools from secondary modern schools, but I urge them to examine the statistics which show that the number of transfers were very few. There are boys and girls today who would never have had an opportunity in the past to go to university or a polytechnic because the necessary examinations would not have been available to them but who today are attending those institutions because they went to comprehensive schools. Today, comprehensive schools provide a range of courses which allows those pupils who mature later to take examinations. The truth is that parental choice is immensely widened by comprehensive schools and not immensely narrowed.
      4.15 p.m.
      Dr. Keith Hampson: We are not debating whether grammar or comprehensive schools give the wider choice. We are trying to say that it is important to retain this amendment in the Bill because nowhere else is there any provision for consulting parents even about what sort of comprehensive pattern a local authority may adopt.
      Mrs. Williams: That is not what the amendment does. It refers back to Sections 76 and 8 of the 1944 Act. As far as I know, those sections make no direct reference to parental choice beyond that applying to the wishes of parents in relation to their particular child and a particular school. I make my remarks in good faith and this matter is in any case covered by Clause 12 which provides specifically that the principles of Sections 76 and 8 shall still stand. They are not in any way altered.
      The point of difference between the two sides arises from whether in practice those two sections shall override the comprehensive principle embodied in the Bill, or whether, as we argue, all three principles are compatible.
      Dr. Hampson: Is the Secretary of State admitting that there is a difference between the present Government's attitude to this matter and that of their predecessors in 1970 because when they tabled the same Bill they included this commitment and references to those two sections of the 1944 Act?
      Mrs. Williams: The position is exactly the same although the wording may be different. We wish all three principles to
      230
      be equally considered by local authorities and we see no conflict.
      Perhaps the Opposition really want to say sub rosa that they are opposed to comprehensive schools. The hon. Member for Chelmsford has said that that is not his view. The day before yesterday in a broadcast, he said,
      "We are the true friends of comprehensive schools".
      I accept that at its value, and if it is so, I urge upon him that there is no necessity for the amendment. Indeed, it might undermine the amount of trust that we can put in his remarks.
      The crucial point is that the three principles to which I have referred stand in the present Bill. There is therefore no necessity whatever for the amendment. It would be required only if in practice it was proposed that the comprehensive principle should be subordinated to the other two. It is not our view that that is either necessary or sensible. We believe that all three are reconcilable and compatible and that they are more reconcilable within the comprehensive pattern than within the selective pattern. I beg to disagree with the amendment. I am suspicious of the motivation, and if the motivation is right, it is wholly unnecessary.
      Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I should like to make clear at the outset of these unfortunately truncated debates the Opposition's attitude to the Bill and the amendments. We oppose the compulsion which is written into the Bill. We oppose the imposition of comprehensive schools everywhere without regard to parental wishes, educational considerations, local conditions or financial resources. But we are in no way opposed to the comprehensive school as such. What we oppose is making it the only type of school. We stand for variety of school, because parents want a degree of choice in this as in other matters within the education system.
      I am entitled to say that the Conservative Party is the true friend of the comprehensive school, because we approach the problem practically and not dogmatically. The idea of the comprehensive school was pioneered by many Conservative councils, but they were always careful to push it forward when they had the resources to make it work. It is no service

      231
      to the comprehensive school to insist that local councils should go ahead with schemes which are comprehensive in name but nothing else.
      The House has decided upon the principle in the Bill and we accept that decision. We are not attempting in the amendments to overturn the Bill. In due course, when the next Conservative Government are formed, we shall repeal its compulsory aspects. What we seek to do now, in the interregnum, is to improve the Bill and make it work, to modify it in accordance with practical, financial and educational considerations. It is precisely on that approach, that, as I said yesterday, we are prepared to meet the Government. We want a dialogue in education, not a punch-up.
      We are delighted that, as he showed in his speech of 18th October, the Prime Minister has been converted to many of the ideas for which we have argued for years. A conversion is always welcome. Maybe it is only a death-bed conversion, but it is none the less valuable. It may not help the Prime Minister in the other world, but it may help him in the other place. We welcome this change of attitude.
      Parental rights, the subject of the amendment, were also the subject of my first speech as Opposition spokesman on education, in June 1974, when I said that throughout the web of Conservative education policy one golden thread was always to be found—that the right to educate children belonged to the parents, and not to the State. It was in the same year that I set out in the Daily Telegraph, in an article called
      "Schools: a return to quality".
      the Opposition's first priority as being to promote high standards in education and quality in the schools.
      We also welcome the Secretary of State's rejection of the idea of the monster school, an idea that was rejected by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a decade ago. We are delighted that the Government have come round to that point of view.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of parental rights, will he tell the House the parental rights of the
      232
      mother and father of children in Tameside, for example, whose children have been allocated to a secondary school?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The rights of the parents in Tameside were exercised through the ballot box when they elected their council on a platform to preserve the existing system of selective schools.
      Sir John Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the parents have the right to have their child considered for entry to any school in the area of their local authority, and that the local authority then has the right to choose the school best suited to the child's talents?
      Hon. Members: Not the parents?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting footnote.
      The point about Tameside is that the Opposition believe in local options. We believe that it is right for local authorities to have the responsibility and duty to make the decisions, a view that is apparently not shared by Labour Members. We also welcome the Government's repudiation of the ill-thought-out proposals by the Schools Council for a common examination, a repudiation which I advocated in a speech at Swinton on 23rd November 1975.
      I have gone into my statements in some detail not because of a sudden attack of egocentricity but to show that in this matter of standards the Opposition have led the way. We have pioneered this change. We welcome the Prime Minister's change of heart.
      The Secretary of State referred today, as she has in other speeches, to the flurry of activity now going on in Elizabeth House—surveys, questionnaires, consultations and so on. What a pity those consultations did not take place before the Bill was drafted, rather than when it is about to reach the statute book! It would have been infinitely preferable if the ground had been well prepared.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will meet us halfway on the amendments. She has come to her present position with a high reputation, and it would be a pity if it were to be spoilt. However, there are

      233
      already signs that our high hopes will not be fulfilled. I refer, first, to the interview that the right hon. Lady gave to The Guardian, which quoted her as saying that her approach is that
      "doing almost anything is better than doing nothing."
      That is an extraordinary doctrine. It is much better to leave things alone when they are working well than to disturb them in favour of dubious schemes.
      Secondly, I am sorry that in the interview she gave the Daily Mail, published on 4th November, the Secretary of State appeared to be obsessed with the private schools. She devoted the whole of her interview to that topic. I remind the right hon. Lady that private schools are not her direct concern and that they cover only 5 per cent. of the children who are being educated. What we require is a clear lead from the right hon. Lady on what is happening to the other 95 per cent., the majority of whom are now being educated in comprehensive schools.
      We had a third disappointment today, with the right hon. Lady's rejection of this very reasonable amendment. She says that it is not necessary. If that is so, why is she opposing it so strongly? If an amendment is not in the Bill it may be argued that we should not put it in because it is unnecessary. But when it is in there is no argument for taking it out on the ground that it makes no difference. It would be much better, particularly in the limited time that we have available, for the right hon. Lady simply to say "We accept this amendment", and we can then move on to discuss some of the others which she might resist with a greater show of reason.
      I hope that the right hon. Lady will make it plain that it is not the Government's intention, as reported in The Times on Monday, that within six months of the Bill's becoming law local authorities will be required to put forward their plans. That would be an act of educational sabotage. It is quite impossible for a local authority to go through the necessary process of consultations within six months of receiving a request from the Secretary of State. The right hon. Lady's own Department cannot do it, so why should she expect local authorities to do it? It is important that in
      234
      the course of these discussions she makes plain the Government's position on this matter.
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will permit us to proceed at a reasonable rate, he will see that there is a specific amendment down on this point which we shall be pleased to answer.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are more people in the House than the right hon. Lady and myself. It is not up to either of us further to truncate the rights of Back Benchers. They must decide for themselves what points they wish to make in their contributions. I was giving the right hon. Lady an opportunity to repudiate the damaging and alarming report that has appeared in The Times and that has all the appearance of a leak from her Department.
      As the Secretary of State rightly said, we must consider the amendment in the context of the Bill as a whole. One cannot consider any section of the Education Acts in isolation. The 1944 Act and the subsequent Acts are an architectural whole built on the firm foundation of the 1944 Act. That is one of the reasons why that Act has lasted for more than 30 years as the foundation of our system.
      The basic principle of that Act is that there is not one power in education but two. There is certainly the Secretary of State, but there are the local education authorities as well. Indeed, the responsibility for educating children under Section 8 of the Act, which we wish to write directly into the Bill, is put directly upon the local education authorities. One of the reasons we have so strongly opposed the Bill is that it enshrines a completely different view of the Education Act.
      Behind the Bill, taking away the power of local authorities to organise their own schools, is a view that local education authorities are agents of the Secretary of State rather than partners. This is the gulf of principle that divides us. Although we may be drawing together in certain spheres of education, that is the basic difference between the Government and the Opposition. That is why we want to make clear that Section 8 remains in force in all its power and rigour. That is why we want it written into the Bill.

      235
      That is why the words "without prejudice" to the effect of Section 8 have been carefully selected.
      If there is a conflict between Section 8 and the Bill, we want to make it clear that Section 8 is not being superseded by the Bill, as the courts might hold, because Section 8 is 30 years old and this is a new piece of legislation. Quite apart from the principle built into the 1944 Act, we also see the whole of education as a partnership in a proper sense, with the partners made up of parents, teachers, councillors, officials and, indeed, the Secretary of State and her civil servants.
      But while we regard that as a partnership, let us be in no doubt about whom we in the Conservative Party put first: we put the parents first. We certainly put them before the teachers, because the parents have the right to educate the child in a way which they have delegated to the teachers. We put them before the officials, because we believe that the parent knows best what is right for his or her child. We believe that the parent knows better than the official in Whitehall and better, even, than the Secretary of State. That is why we have continually stressed in our approach, in our policy development and in our speeches that this is the prime right of the parent. That is why we want it explicitly written into the Bill.
      The Prime Minister, in his speech on 18th October, indicated that he had picked up this groundswell of concern from parents. I suppose that one could say that he had his ear to the groundswell. We are delighted that the echoes of what is going on in the real world have penetrated even the remoter recesses in Number 10. But we want more than words from the Prime Minister. We welcome those words, but they are only a prelude to action.
      Here we have the first opportunity for the Government to show that they are really sincere in this espousal of parental rights. We have had the Secretary of State doing it in a reasonable way, but saying quite flatly and firmly that the Government intend to do nothing at all to translate their words into deeds. I shall not fall for the right hon. Lady's blandishments; nor shall we be misled by
      236
      those honeyed words. The right hon. Lady is being increasingly rigid on this subject. We regret that because, it is a sign that she will not put as much flexibility in the Government's approach as some of us had hoped.
      We had hoped that she would go on not only to welcome the principle that we are attempting to write into the Bill but to announce some kind of Government action on the parents' charter which has been a central point of our policy since I launched it at Stockport on 12th August 1974. We welcome what the Prime Minister said about parents having some rights, but let us have something concrete as well.
      These are general considerations, but there are important practical and legal considerations for having the amendment written into the Bill. The amendment falls into two parts and refers to "Section 8" and to "Section 76". Section 76 makes it quite plain that:
      "In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
      The Secretary of State made a great deal of the question of choice. It is perfectly true that parents want choice, but it is important to recognise what sort of choice they want. The first thing they certainly want is the possibility of a choice between a comprehensive school and another type of school. But, of course, that is not confined to the 20 per cent. or so who have that opportunity opening up before them. It is not an argument which merits much intellectual consideration that if a choice is available only to 20 per cent., it should be made available to none. That is an extraordinary argument. It may be an argument of Socialism, but it is not one which stands up to logical or reasonable examination.
      We are not concerned in this matter of parental choice with that group only. We are concerned with all parents. What many parents want is not only a choice between a comprehensive and a non-comprehensive school. They want a choice between different types of comprehensive school. They may want a choice between a comprehensive, say

      237
      which specialises in maths, and one which does not. They may prefer a single-sex school to a mixed school.
      That is why we tabled here, and there was tabled in another place, an amendment to require that every school should publish a prospectus. It was defeated by only one vote in this House. Of course, those prospectuses would not be confined to any particular type of school. They would cover all maintained schools. I hope that I have made clear to the Secretary of State our attitude on that question.
      The Secretary of State—I wish that she would listen to me for a moment and resist the fascinations of whoever is talking into her ear: no doubt some official or PPS—said that a comprehensive school widened the choice of parents by providing a variety of courses and so on. That is true if it is a proper comprehensive. If it has the financial resources and the requisite number of teachers, of course it provides a choice. But it is precisely our case against the Bill that that is not what the Bill is providing. The Bill says in effect "You must go comprehensive whether you have the resources or not." That is why we also have an amendment on this vital point.
      When I mentioned this point to the Prime Minister in the House, he gave me an unreasonable reply, accusing me of being like one of Pavlov's dogs, reacting to a bell whenever comprehensive schools were mentioned. That has not been the reaction of the Opposition. One might make a tu quoque reply and ask what the Prime Minister does whenever the subject is mentioned. He, too, reacts like a Pavlov's dog, but by reaching for a guillotine.
      Miss Joan Lestor: Pavlov did not guillotine his dogs.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady's knowledge of Pavlov is much superior to mine. I bow to her expertise in that regard.
      There is a practical legal point here which was glossed over by the Secretary of State. She was not, of course, a member of the Committee when we discussed the legal aspects of this problem, although she has been kind enough to say that she stayed up until an early
      238
      hour in the morning reading the arguments which were deployed. It is a pity that other Ministers were not so assiduous in this respect.
      I shall not go through all those legal arguments again: they are on the record and will no doubt be raised in the courts in due course. But there is a real problem of a conflict between the general principle in the Education Act—that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents—and the requirement that education should take place only in comprehensive schools. There is a prima facie conflict there.
      4.45 p.m.
      This is not an academic conflict, although no doubt the right hon. Lady would agree that academic conflicts are not without importance; it is a practical conflict. It arose in Southend, in a defined area, where the parents were consulted by the Essex County Council about whether they wished to continue with a system of selective schools. About 17,000 parents were consulted, 65 per cent. of those eligible to vote did so and three-quarters of that 65 per cent. voted for the continuation of the selective system whether their children were at grammar schools or at non-selective schools.
      What is the legal position there? It is no good the right hon. Lady coming here with a brief which she has been given by her legal advisers and saying that all will be well. That is exactly what her predecessor did, and we know what happened to him—he was put in charge of our defences, which in the Labour Party is considered a demotion. Relying on that advice, he had gone to the courts and found that the advice was not worth the paper it was written on.
      The Government have never tackled this problem. They have never looked at it firmly and asked what should happen when these two matters come into conflict.
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: To which would the hon. Gentleman give priority?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no hesitation in answering the right hon. Lady. If there is a conflict between the principle of universal comprehensive schools and that of parental wishes, of course we would give priority to the parents, because

      239
      it is the parents who are at the foundation of the system and of course we would heed their wishes. But what we hope is that when such conflict arises, the Bill will give some guidance about a reasonable solution.
      I greatly regret that on this first, most important, reasonable and reasoned amendment, the Secretary of State has adopted such a dogmatic attitude. The amendment would improve the Bill. It was supported in the House of Lords by Conservative and Liberal Peers and it has been supported by those in the education world who have no party allegiance.
      If the Secretary of State could accept the amendment, she would improve the Bill and bring nearer the day when we could abandon trench warfare in education and open a reasonable dialogue in the best interests of those who whom the education system is devised—namely, the children.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has complained bitterly that the debate is truncated. This evening, we shall reach a total of no fewer than 166 hours of debate in both Houses of Parliament on what began as a 10-clause Bill. If this debate is truncated, may the Lord—or, in his absence, yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker—preserve us from a debate which is not truncated and in which the hon. Member has free rein.
      We spent 35 sittings of the Committee on the first four clauses. It would be safe to say that never have four clauses been so well and so lengthily debated in the whole history of this House. We spent 15 sittings on the first clause and completed it at 18 minutes to midnight in the last sitting.
      We went through all the arguments that we have heard again today from the hon. Member. We went through all his legal arguments and, at the end of the lengthiest crossing of legal quartersticks, the hon. Gentleman was moved to admit that he might be wrong and that I might be right. That from the hon. Gentleman is tantamount to a renunciation of his faith.
      During that argument, the hon. Member for Chelmsford gave the Committee a solemn assurance that the legal advice
      240
      that he had received was free. On behalf of the Government I was happy to accept that assurance and to assure him in return that we were convinced that he was getting value for money. We have seen the quality of that legal advice again today.
      All that the Lords amendment seeks to do is to write Sections 76 and 8 of the Education Act 1944 into the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, there is clearly no point in doing that unless it be done with malice prepense. Fortunately, when we legislate in this House we do not normally repeat in each new amending Bill the whole content of previous Acts of Parliament. Heaven knows, our sessions and sittings go on long enough. If we adopted that as a general practice, we should never go home at all. We can only assume, therefore, that it is done with malice prepense.
      Looking first at Section 8 as it is repeated in the amendment we find that the general principle imposed by Clause I of the Bill is to be subject to the duty imposed by Section 8 of the 1944 Act. In Committee, we agreed that a duty was a duty, and a general principle was a general principle. We also agreed that in fulfilling the duty imposed by Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 the local authority, as the Bill says, would simply be required to have regard to this new general principle. We now have a new rule, that the general principle itself should be subject to a duty. I am not a lawyer; I bow to the legal wisdom and experience of the hon. Member for Chelmsford. But if he can explain how a general principle can be subject to a duty I shall be very surprised.
      Surely, we should avoid writing dubious words of that kind into the Bill. In essence, all the words do is to repeat Section 8 of the 1944 Act. No one is in any doubt as to the duty of the local authority and in no way does that duty conflict with the comprehensive principle. When a local education authority has adopted the comprehensive principle in no way is it in default of a duty that it shall—
      "secure provision of secondary schools sufficient in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes".
      What is the point of writing it in?

      241
      The first part of the amendment, namely, the repetition of Section 76, I have no doubt is the key to the amendment. I should like to go back to a case which we debated at great length in Committee. I am sorry to keep referring to what happened in Committee, but the Bill has never had a Report stage. Despite spending four days and parts of several nights on it, we never reached Report because the Opposition put down 103 new clauses and it was clear that we never could reach it even if we spent the rest of the Session on it.
      On Report the Opposition manifested extraordinary imagination in devising new clauses but they did not manifest much determination ever to get to the heart of the Bill. It ill behoves them now to complain that the substance of the Bill has been inadequately debated on the Floor of the House when it is entirely their doing.
      I return to Section 76. In Committee we discussed the ratio decidendi of Mr. Justice Goff in the case of Wood v. the Ealing London Borough Council. We had some argument whether it was an obiter dictum or a ratio decidendi, and the hon. Gentleman conducted most of the proceedings in Committee in Latin. In the end we agreed that it was part of the ratio decidendi that Section 76 of the 1934 Act referred to parental choice on grounds of religion or a matter of the curriculum and the like, but did not convey upon parents collectively the right to determine the character—in the sense of selective or non-selective—of secondary education in the area of their local authority. That was the burden of Mr. Justice Goff's judgment.
      I place no great reliance upon the judgment of the courts. There has been some unhappy, even bizarre, examples recently. We do not want to place excessive weight on Mr. Justice Goff's judgment in that case, but it is the law as it stands at the moment. It is precisely because the hon. Gentleman hopes that he can get another interpretation of that section, because he hopes that the law as it is can be set aside and overturned and that we can have a judgment in the future that parents collectively have the right to determine the character of secondary education in the area of their local education authority, that he wants that section of the 1944 Act
      242
      to be repeated in the Bill. It is for no other reason.
      The hon. Gentleman clearly hopes that he can sabotage the Bill when it has become an Act of Parliament by going to the courts and getting a judgment that, whatever Parliament says in passing the Bill, in future parents shall be able to determine the whole character of the secondary education in the area of their local education authority.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a novel constitutional argument which looks very strange, whether it be in English or Latin. Surely it is not sabotage of the House to go to the courts for an interpretation of the meaning of an Act of Parliament. That is a basic constitutional right which every citizen has. So why is he using the word "sabotage" and suggesting that a person who goes to the courts for an authoritative declaration is guilty of a nefarious offence?
      Mr. Fowler: I would not seek to deny the right to any citizen to go to the courts. Parents having gone to the courts for a ruling on the meaning of Section 76, it is obvious that the hon. Gentleman, not liking the judgment of the courts, will in future incite parents throughout the country to go to the courts again until he gets a judgment more to his liking. I was not arguing that there was anything wrong with parents going to the courts. Far from it. I was arguing rather that the hon. Gentleman wants to see that section repeated here, side by side with Clause 1, and his interpretation of Section 76, which is totally erroneous as he well knows, stated in this House in opposing the rejection of the amendment, so that in future cases before the court he can argue the case more readily. That is all that the exercise is about.
      I hope that the House realises that when the hon. Gentleman says, first, that that is what he wants to do and, secondly, that he believes that the Bill is monstrous because it robs local education authorities of their power, he is contradicting himself, because the whole nub of the Opposition's case on parental choice is that local education authorities should have no power. The Opposition's case is that there should no longer be representative democracy as we know it but, instead,

      243
      there should be a peculiar form of parental/populace democracy in which the constantly changing body of parents determines the character of secondary education within a local education authority area. For the hon. Gentleman simultaneously to advance the thesis that the Government are destroying the power of local education authorities by the proposals they have put forward in the Bill is little short of hypocrisy.
      I invite the House overwhelmingly to reject the amendment. The Opposition's motives are clear and we want none of it.
      5.0 p.m.
      Dr. Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) was right to say that we Conservatives lay great emphasis on Section 76 and upon parental rights. It is strange how the Conservative Party seems to be the defender of public and parental rights these days while the Labour Party turns itself practically into the defender of the bureaucratic machine that it has set up.
      The Secretary of State referred to the question of choice. I shall confine myself to the issue of choice in comprehensive schools. This is quite valid within the comprehensive system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, just because only 20 per cent. of pupils had choice in the past we should not wipe out that number. We should see how we can increase it to 60 per cent., 70 per cent., or 80 per cent. If people want the choice, we should provide it. If the Labour Party does not believe in choice—and the hon. Member for The Wrekin does not—let it say so and the public will understand, as it understood last Thursday, the direction in which the Labour Party is unfortunately going these days.
      There was choice for more than 20 per cent. when I was the head of a secondary modern school in Rossendale. There were five or six secondary modern schools there. Some parents would much have preferred their children to go to the grammar school but there was a distinct choice between various secondary schools, in Ramsbottom, Haslingden and Rossendale. Children would walk or ride by bus or train six or seven miles to schools in the valleys. When I was
      244
      a boy I failed the 11-plus but was nominated later for a grammar school. I went to a grammar school in another valley.
      What worries me is that there is no mention of parents from beginning to end in the Bill. They are just an encumbrance, apart from the moment of breeding and the dance of the chromosomes. All that we want to have written into the Bill is that there should be this right of parental choice. However well intentioned local education authorities are, by the time a councillor has sat for 10 or 20 years on an education committee he has become a bureaucrat. Much of parental choice is nominal and will remain so in future unless something more substantial is written into the Bill.
      There is a distinctive choice between comprehensive schools, and that is why it is essential that this parental right should be embodied in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has referred to the number of different courses. This particularly applies when schools become smaller. The smaller the comprehensive school becomes, the less wide is the variety of teaching. Choice is much more important when there are schools which have only 750 pupils rather than three-stream entry schools with a total population 2,000 or 3,000. The whole of the comprehensive system will fall apart because of the parental backlash which will arise if pupils are made to attend a comprehensive school when parents do not like the emphasis of the school. I do not refer to an emphasis on education but to a type of discipline.
      There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of my hon. Friends that many parents are greatly concerned about the type of discipline and the attitude towards general values in society which exist inside various schools. Parents want their children to attend schools where the values are the same as those in the home. There are schools in London to which I would not send my children, but not because of the curriculum. It is because I do not accept that the values within such schools are good.
      Single-sex schools, Church schools and all the other varieties that have been mentioned relate to a question of choice which ought to be within a parent's power. It is important to bear this in mind at a time when we are experiencing a fall in the birth rate. The schools

      245
      which will be with us in 20 years' time will be those which the parents have favoured, rather than those which have operated on the basis of achieving tidiness within local authorities. Freedom and parental choice have nothing to do with tidiness. They are to do with the values a parent wants inside a school. Reductions in the intake or the closure of certain schools reflect the standing of those schools in the eyes of parents. No school will be successful unless it has the backing of the parents and no school will have the backing of the parents unless the parents agree with the way in which the school is run.
      I refer the Secretary of State to the Plowden Report. There is no doubt that the right hon. Lady has done her homework. She has studied this report and the exciting hours that we spent dealing with this Bill in Committee and elsewhere. The Plowden Report makes it clear that next to the ability of the child the most important factor in his education is the backing of the family. A child will get that backing only when the parent has chosen the type of school. I am not referring to grammar schools here. I am dealing with comprehensives. A parent wants to have some say within that system.
      I hope that I am not being unfair, but sometimes it seems that there is a sneering at parental rights by Labour Members who appear to favour the idea that the bureaucrat knows what is best for the child. Parents know the capabilities of their children and the disadvantages they suffer better than anyone else. Schools often want a tidy set of people coming in. Local authorities are moved backwards and forwards by educational fashions. We have seen those rise and fall during the past 20 years. Basically, parents want education for their children. We would not have got into this mess if we had left the internal organisations of schools alone. I do not want to trust inspectors or bureaucrats; I want to trust parents.
      Mr. Mike Noble: The hon. Member has referred to my constituency, which he knows well. Can he answer two points? If there is to be complete freedom of choice, as he has suggested, what would he do when a school became over-subscribed? Is it not the case that freedom of choice in such
      246
      circumstances would lead to an absolute negation of freedom for some children? There is the freedom to choose and the freedom to be able to fulfil that choice. The hon. Gentleman knows Rossendale and the vast area it covers. Suppose that a working-class child in Ramsbottom wishes to attend a school in Haslingden. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his bus fare should be set out of public expenditure—at this time of constraint—or is he suggesting that the parent should pay? He must know that many parents cannot afford to pay.
      Dr. Boyson: I will deal with the second point first because it is the most important one and the one that we normally get from the Labour Party. I came from a working-class family in this area. My experience was that if parents needed to find the fares they would do so. I have great respect for the self-assurance and self-respect of the working class. They would still do the same if we gave them the chance in a free society.
      Turning to the hon. Member's first question, I would like to lead him a little towards seeing what can be done to improve the school situation in Rossendale, and possibly Burnley, where the hon. Member used to be chairman of the education committee. If one school is heavily over-subscribed and another heavily under-subscribed, we should not let things go on in that way, as has happened for the past 10 or 20 years. Under a system of parental choice there would be such an outcry that something would have to be done about that under-subscribed school. If the school had been under-subscribed for three or four years that is where the local inspectors should be working, rather than doing silly courses about the latest fashion. They should be inside that school finding out why parents are not sending their children to it and so should the Department's inspectors. If there were a parental market system operating we would have better schools the length and breadth of the country.
      My last point is a political one and I make no apology for that because I sit here as a political animal. We appear to be moving towards a society in which more and more power is vested in local authorities and Government and the individual has less power. We must

      247
      reverse that trend or we shall destroy a free society in which individuals are able to make a choice for themselves and their families—a society in which there is, real moral growth. The importance of writing in something about parental choice is not simply related to the improvement of schools. It will represent a step back from the move to the totalitarian society which we face unless we are careful. It will be a move towards the free society in which my hon. Friends and I and many Labour Members believe.
      Miss Joan Lestor: As the House knows, I represent the constituency of Eton and Slough and in recent years have been elected to that constituency four times. I have always made one of the planks in my election programme the fact that I am a firm believer in comprehensive education. I have advocated that policy at every election, and I have been elected and re-elected by my constituents who have full knowledge of my views.
      In my constituency we are not comprehensive. We belong to Berkshire, which is partly comprehensive, but my area of Berkshire is not comprehensive. Since we have had so much talk about parental choice, I wonder who determines what is to happen in Eton and Sough. The fact that I have been elected flows to a great extent from the fact that many of my constituents believe in comprehensive education.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that parental choice was of paramount importance, and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) spoke in rather different terms about parental choice. I am in an area where it could be argued that parental choice exists because we are non-comprehensive. We are told by the Opposition that the comprehensive system destroys choice, but each summer many parents come into my surgery with the plea "I put down such-and-such a grammar school for my child, but they have told me that my child cannot go to that school". The hon. Member for Brent, North said that parents understood the abilities of their children. Many parents take the view "My child is grammar school material and there-
      248
      fore I want him to go to a grammar school." Some parents take the view that if the whole system were comprehensive, they would not face that problem.
      When I examined the situation I discovered that parents who live in areas which are regarded as areas of choice usually have chosen one of the two or three grammar schools in the area. But the choice is not a parental one. It is a decision taken by selective examination, by teacher choice, and by authority consultation—and then come the parents. If those matters happen to be in accord, the parents will get the school they wish for their child. Therefore, that element of choice is tiny. Indeed what makes the choice is not the parent, the child or even the education authority. It is the performance—or what is adjudged to be the performance—of that child by teachers and or by examination. The argument based on choice is a myth and always has been.
      The hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke as though the matter of going to a grammar school was easily definable throughout the country, particularly before most parts of the country went comprehensive. But there is also a myth in that argument. In Wales half the children have a grammar school education. In other parts of the country the figure is very much lower. Anybody who has followed the development of education in the past 20 years knows that many parents have put their children into independent schools whose sole boast was "Put your child into our private school, and we shall ensure that he or she passes the examination to go to a grammar school." The amount of coaching that went on was incredible. Furthermore, parents would move into areas where the number of grammar school places was higher than in their own area. But there was no fairness in that situation. Nothing was based on IQ and there was little basis for parental choice. I think that when Opposition Members talk blithely about freedom of choice and the rights of parents, these things must be said.
      I have known my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for a long time and I read his recent speech as expressing concern about the standards of education—but concern about all our children, and not just the minority.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady implied that there were some schools which plied children with a great deal of academic learning which could be absorbed in those schools rather than in primary schools. That was one way of saying that parents require academic learning for their children. She then said that parents came to her surgery with the plea "My child cannot get to a grammar school." Will she address her mind to the argument involving a situation where parental choice could be useful in terms of academic content and choice between comprehensive schools?
      Miss Lestor: I have set out the choice, if one may so call it, in my non-comprehensive area between a secondary modern school and other types of school, including the grammar school. I said that parents came to my surgery with the plea "I made my choice, but it was denied to me." To put the matter the other way round, if there is within an area comprehensive schools with a wide variety of subjects and a wide curriculum, that variety of material will be available to all children. Therefore, the comment "This type of school suits my child because he or she is a grammar school child" does not arise. Areas are then able to cope with the abilities and aptitudes of all children.
      The fundamental mistake in the Opposition's argument lies in assuming that when a parent makes a decision about a child at age 10 or 11 he can also make a prediction at that time. What has happened in our educational system is that we have fulfilled our own prophesies. In a comprehensive area the question of grammar school versus other schools does not arise. The comprehensive school can teach a wide variety of curricula and give an opportunity to all children to allow them to develop their own talents.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I support the retention in the Bill of the Lords amendments. However, I am concerned that there are many parts of the Bill which will not be discussed in this House.
      If the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) speaks at similar length on each amendment, obviously we
      250
      shall not be able to hear many speeches before the guillotine falls. It is clear that many hon. Members will wish to take the opportunity, if they have the good fortune to be called, to speak on this group of amendments. In these circumstances the Government should consider whether to bring before the House motions allocating time specifically to each amendment.
      In discussing the amendment the talk has all been about parental choice. Some Conservative Members have sought to pretend that that choice resides in selection and that justification for the inclusion of the amendment can be based on that assertion. Any notion that the parent whose child is allocated to a secondary modern school has any choice under the system that some authorities still retain must be an absurdity. It is said that the parent whose child is allocated to a grammar school can exercise the choice of withdrawing the child and sending him to a secondary modern school. Surely that is no real choice. That does not make sense to my constituents. It did not make sense to them when they were in that position.
      I am happy to tell Conservative Members that some Conservative authorities appear to be looking at the real world. The authority whose area I represent—it is an area dominated by Conservatives—has been moving solidly towards comprehensive education over a considerable period. It has done so undisturbed and untroubled by the arguments that have been advanced in this place, arguments that bear no relation to the practice of the conservatism of the local authority, which has long since decided that parental choice does not reside in selection.
      In my view that does not of itself answer the case put by another place for the inclusion within the Bill of words taken from the 1944 Act, words which underline good practice as it exists in many schools and authorities. In fact, good comprehensive schools provide a wide range of choice to pupils and parents alike.
      At this stage I must enter a note of caution. It seems to be suggested at times by some Conservative Members that only parents exercise choice. In fact, choice is exercised by pupils. It is increasingly to be exercised by them the older they get. We are talking about secondary

      251
      education, and it is not always the parent who knows what is best for the child. There comes a stage when the child's judgment is as sound. Sometimes the teacher is in a position to make a judgment when the parent has misjudged.
      Dr. Hampson: We argued in Committee that one reason for having the change of wording that is provided for in Sections 8 and 76 was that without it we feared that it might not be possible to provide systems allowing break points at which parents and pupils could select for themselves. We feared that local authorities might not feel it possible to have that sort of system.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman underlines my case. It is reasonable to include in the Bill words that support good practice and would not have, I suspect, the disastrous effects that the Minister fears if brought before a court of law. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's confidence in the legal advice that is given to the Government. Nothing has been said so far that convinces me that these words would pose such danger to the comprehensive principle.
      Good authorities as well as good schools provide an element of choice. That is the practice in the authority whose area I represent. As it moves further and further into a comprehensive system it seeks to provide an element of choice between comprehensive schools when there is a good case for doing so, when, for example, particular facilities and aptitudes are catered for in a different school.
      In an agricultural area it is not always possible for a comprehensive school to provide extensive agricultural facilities, although that might be possible for some. A sensible authority uses its sense and, without defying the comprehensive principle, enables an amount of parental choice to be exercised. That is not in breach of the comprehensive principle and it is a practice that I am sure the Government would not seek to oppose. At least, I hope that they would not do so. They have so far shown no intention of taking that course. It is a practice that would he helped if the words were included in the Bill. To include words that are considered by Governments to be unnecessary is by no means a bad thing.
      252
      The case advanced against the inclusion of these words is not one that leads me to advise my hon. Friends that they should take away something which has been on the statute book for some time and which will remain on the statute book. The inclusion would not undermine the main principles of the Bill.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The amendment is especially important although I hope that it is not typical of many of the other amendments that we shall receive from another place this week. It is fundamentally a wrecking and not a reforming amendment.
      My right hon. Friend has dealt extremely well with the three basic principles contained within the Bill—namely, parental choice, education provision and a comprehensive system. There is no doubt that the amendment undermines the basis of the comprehensive system. It introduces the concept of choice, and whichever way that choice is made, whether it involves examination or teacher assessment, we undermine the comprehensive principle. We cannot have a grammar school in existence without undermining that principle.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the Bill? Has he not read Clause 12? Has he not listened to the argument advanced by his right hon. Friend, who said that the amendment was unnecessary? Did he not hear her say that she was not against it in principle but that Clause 12 includes the very choice that is sought to be retained?
      Mr. Roberts: I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate and I listened to my right hon. Friend. The whole argument put forward by the Opposition tends to undermine the principle of the Bill. I have taken students who were studying for their PhD and who had failed to obtain admission to a grammar school. They failed in the days of the 11-plus. I never remembered the students who had worked their way through the system to get as far as me. I remembered those who had been left behind as a result of a selective system. That leaving behind is the inevitable effect of having such a system.
      It may be argued that it was possible for a transfer to take place from a secondary modern school to a grammar school.

      253
      What percentage of students were transferred in that way? I suggest that it was the experience of very few.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is no longer in the Chamber. I felt that he dealt inadequately with the various points that were put to him. For instance, it was put to the hon. Gentleman that the poor parents in Tameside who are faced with a secondary school somewhere in their neighbourhood have no choice in financial terms or in any other terms. Under the comprehensive system there would be a much wider real choice than the grammar school or secondary modern school situation.
      A great deal of reference has been made to some conversion on the part of the Prime Minister. I am not sure what the conversion amounts to, but I have not seen a great conversion. The startling conversion that we heard this afternoon was the admission by the hon. Member for Chelmsford that only 5 per cent. of our children go to fee-paying schools. The fact is that most of the attention of the Opposition is concentrated on the children who go to such schools.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: Rubbish.
      Mr. Roberts: The type of choice—
      Mr. Cormack: Where did you go?
      Mr. Roberts: I went to an ordinary central county school.
      The type of choice that the Opposition are seeking is the second best. They are not concerned with the 20 per cent., only with the 5 per cent. who can afford to send their children to fee paying schools. The choice they are seeking is to give that 5 per cent. the choice of sending their children to grammar school if they are unable to get through the selection machinery at that stage.
      5.30 p.m.
      Sir George Sinclair: When my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked the hon. Gentleman where he had been all this time, he meant where the hon. Gentleman had been when the discussions took place in Standing Committee. Only a very small part of the debate there was concerned about the selection side of education. Again and again our spokes-
      254
      men said, "Our main concern is to raise standards in the schools which serve the greater part of the children."
      Mr. Roberts: That might be the attitude of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), but, as I see the arguments that they have put forward, the only sort of choice that the Opposition as a whole are concerned with is the choice of this tiny proportion of the parents. But, of course, they are very experienced in this subject. Most hon. Members opposite in the Conservative Party went to fee-paying schools and most send their children to them. Their, concern must obviously be with that aspect.
      In whatever guise it appears, the amendment is basically a wrecking amendment to undermine the concept of comprehensive education. That is why we should resist it. In doing so, we shall be giving a genuine choice not just to 5 per cent. or 20 per cent. but to 100 per cent. of parents involved.
      Mr. George Gardiner: I trust that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) will forgive me if I do not follow all the points he made as I found it a little hard to detect their relevance to the amendment.
      The point which will have struck many of us on this side of the House, and many people in the country at large, is the great contrast between the tone of the Prime Minister's speech of 18th October at Ruskin College and the attitude being taken by the Government towards these amendments. The Bill was conceived long before the Prime Minister took office. It went through its Committee stage long before the great revelation came upon him on his road to Ruskin. But it seems peculiar to many of us that, even after he took over his premiership, presumably already nursing the kind of sentiment he chose to express at Ruskin, the whole forces of the Government were marshalled on Report to vote down new clauses from this side of the House which would have had the effect of achieving the objectives which he outlined in his Ruskin College speech. But that is a matter of history.
      Since then, we have seen the Upper House fulfilling the function of improving the Bill by a number of amendments which are entirely consistent with the

      255
      general principle which the Government are seeking to further, and at the same time, albeit unintentionally, consistent with the concern expressed by the Prime Minister about what is happening in education. That certainly applies to this amendment, which seeks to protect parental rights as they have been understood since the 1944 Act was passed.
      Hon. Members opposite are treating the amendment as if it were a wrecking amendment. Listening to the Secretary of State, I was not sure whether she regarded it as a wrecking amendment. But such a view is not compatible with the view stated in the Upper House by the Minister there, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The burden of his case was that the amendment was unnecessary. Those two positions hardly seem consistent.
      Another inconsistency is between the Secretary of State's assertion today that the three principles involved—the principles in Sections 8 and 76 of the 1944 Act and the principle of Clause 1 of this Bill—are entirely compatible, and the acceptance by Lord Donaldson that there was at least some scope for conflict between the principle of Clause 1 and the principles of Sections 8 and 76.
      The Secretary of State said that she feared that the effect of the amendment would be to make the comprehensive principle as outlined in Clause 1 subordinate to the principles spelled out in Sections 8 and 76. The fear in the country, going far beyond the areas of the so-called rebel education authorities, is entirely the other way round—that Sections 8 and 76 of the 1944 Act will come to be made subordinate to the principle outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill.
      I can easily see parents lodging appeals to the Secretary of State under the scope given to them in the 1944 Act only to find those appeals dismissed on the ground of the principle outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill. Indeed, I can see some local education authorities using the principle in Clause 1 to provide cover and justification for refusing the claims and wishes of parents made under Sections 8 and 76. I warn parents that a dictatorial local education authority can easily use the principle outlined in Clause 1 to beat down parents who
      256
      otherwise would have received a fair hearing of their complaints under Sections 8 and 76 of the 1944 Act.
      Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Gentleman has been referring to appeals that might be made by parents from a local authority decision to the Secretary of State. Under what section of the Act is a Minister able to give a decision overruling a local authority decision?
      Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is possible under the 1944 Act for parents to lodge an appeal to the Minister on the ground that a local authority is behaving unreasonably in refusing a place to their child in a particular school.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that, since the House of Lords ruling on the Tameside case, there is any possibility of using Section 68 to the 1944 Act in that way, since the Minister has now to prove, if he uses Section 68 in individual appeal cases, that the local authority is acting as no reasonable body of people could possibly act? Does he think that Section 68 is any longer operable?
      Mr. Gardiner: I can see a situation in which a Labour Minister, in turning down and arguing against a parental appeal, would base part of the argument, as would certain local authorities, on the fact that the principle outlined in Clause 1 of the Bill gave the justification for refusing the wish which those parents had stated to the local authority regarding their own child's education.
      But I want to return to the Prime Minister's Ruskin College speech and his correct concern for standards in education. I see a great deal to welcome in that speech, as do many of my hon. Friends, although perhaps not so many hon. Members opposite. But a criticism I have is that he envisages this situation as being rectified almost entirely by action from the centre of our system and does not recognise that the great force for improving standards comes from recognising, protecting and enhancing the rights of parents within our education system. That is the great driving force for preserving and raising standards. If the

      257
      Government were doing their job properly, they would in their legislation be setting about giving it greater effect.
      Our fear is that by refusing to accept the amendment and to build it into the Bill the Government are diminishing the rights of parents as these have been understood so far. There is a growing feeling among parents in this country, expressed in a variety of ways, that they should have more say and more choice before them in our education system.
      This is not just a choice, as some Labour Members seem to think, between a grammar school and comprehensive schools. It is a choice between different comprehensives in an area, and between single-sex schools and co-educational schools. It is a choice which can go across the iron curtains which have so frequently been erected around tight catchment areas. This is the kind of parental choice of which we are speaking and which we wish to see extended.
      The 1944 Act defined—too vaguely, in our view—the rights of parents, for we now find that these rights have been and are being eroded, not by teachers in schools at all, but by the actions of educational administrators at local and, indeed, national level.
      Throughout the country there is far greater pressure than there was a few years back to recognise the rights of parents. Even the Prime Minister, in his Ruskin College speech, acknowledged this, although only in connection with school governors. Yet we find today that the Government's resistance to this House of Lords amendment flies in the very face of that pressure.
      We on the Conservative side maintain that the 1944 Act is now inadequate in defining and protecting those parental rights. By refusing the amendment the Government are taking a major step in the reverse direction. They are swimming against the tide that is running strongly throughout the country and is deeply understood today by all who are concerned with education. That is why it can only be a matter of time before the legislation which is being forced through, will be swept away by it.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Frank Hatton: In listening to Conservative
      258
      Members I wonder how many of them have served on local education authorities, held positions of responsibility, and tried to exercise responsibility in the interests of parents.
      The problems of choice, with which the amendment seeks to deal, are, I admit, not easy. They are very difficult indeed. I understand from Conservative Members that there are still very many parents who feel extremely strongly about their lack of opportunity of choice.
      Now that so many local authorities, following the last municipal elections, are in the hands of the Conservatives. I wonder why there are still so many problems concerning parental choice. One would have thought that some law of diminishing returns would be operating now that so many local education authorities are controlled by the Conservatives.
      I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) go back to the period of time—in her case, it happens to be the present time—when there were still problems of selection and problems related to the grammar schools. I can well remember that my own authority on which I had some responsibility, gave parents a very wide choice, but there were still very many occasions when parents were dissatisfied with the choice of the particular school, even though their children had been successful in obtaining a place in one of the city grammar schools.
      Where authorities have moved to the comprehensive system—I believe that there are many examples of this throughout the country—the choice has been very much widened. In my own city, the choice has been so widened that 80 per cent. of parents are now getting their first choice, whereas previously, under the old grammar and secondary modern school system, very few parents had other than the choice of one secondary modern school or another secondary modern school.
      In this brief intervention—I know that there are many other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate—I wish simply to re-emphasise the very much wider opportunity that comprehensive education has given to parents in our country. It is something that I welcome very much indeed. I therefore see no, reason to accept the amendment.
      Dr. Hampson: It seems to me that we have had some dreadful misconceptions in the debate as to the motives for keeping the Lords amendment in the Bill. The position has not been helped by the Secretary of State herself, along with so many of her hon. Friends, continually reverting to the sterile and ancient debates about 11-plus selection, and whether there would be more choice and a greater variety of courses if we dropped it.
      Either the Secretary of State is genuinely ambivalent in her position or, charming though she may be, she is speaking with a forked tongue. On the one hand, she says that the Government, like the Opposition, believe in parental choice and in variety of schools and courses. She says that the Government accept Section 8 of the 1944 Act, dealing with variety of provision, and Section 76 of that Act, dealing with the need for the wishes of parents to be taken into account. Yet, on the other hand, she says that the amendment is not really necessary, partly because the provision is already in the Bill under Clause 12. Why not remove all doubts by keeping the Lords amendment in the Bill?
      But the real reason that the Secretary of State argues that it is not necessary to emphasise these two principles of the 1944 Act is that there is a third principle which, in her view, should have precedence over the other two, rather than working in harmony with them. The right hon. Lady said that the comprehensive principle means very considerably more choice for parents than they can have with any other system.
      The right hon. Lady is saying, in effect, that we should take the Government on trust. Frankly, we are not prepared to trust the Government. We are not prepared to accept that in running the education system either the right hon. Lady or any other Labour Secretary of State—would take account fairly of all three principles. We want to retain the essence of the 1944 legislation—the partnership of central and local authorities with parents. That is why we want to have it spelt out in the Bill.
      The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler)—the former Minister of State, Department of Education and Science—have emphasised the shortness of the Bill and the fact that it has received very much more
      260
      time than the 1944 Bill received. But the fact is that the Bill now before this House is highly contentious, because it is trying to remove from the educational system the partnership between authority and parent which was instituted by the 1944 Act. Time after time in Committee Ministers admitted that the balance is being shifted fundamentally. The former Minister of State said repeatedly in Committee that the Bill would change the balance of power, and he knows that that is so. I need hardly remind him that, in Committee on that occasion, the then Mr. Butler said that, as Clause 8 indicated, the variety of education policy of this country must depend on local initiative. That was what Section 8 was all about.
      Section 36 put the obligation on the parents primarily to educate and the variety of provision on the local authorities. Section 13 means that, as the Act stands at present, only a local authority can initiate change. Then the Secretary of State can modify the change or reject it, but the locus of initiative hangs on the local authority and not on the Secretary of State.
      This Bill is changing that balance. Now the local authority has to obey the Secretary of State and to submit proposals within six months if she so requests.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I said repeatedly in Committee that this Bill proposed a minor change in the boundary between central and local government and a minor change in the prescriptive limit set by central Government to the activities of local government. But that has no relevance to the repetition in the Bill of what is already law in any event by virtue of the 1944 Act—except, I suppose, on the principle that "I have said it once, I have said it twice, and therefore it must be true".
      Mr. Christopher Price: Three times.
      Dr. Hampson: I am sure that few hon. Members could possibly accept that position. This is not a marginal change in the system. It is a fundamental change.
      There are certain silly illogicalities in the Government's position. This boils down to whether the Government are against selection procedures at a certain point in time—the 11-plus—about which

      261
      many of us agree with them. But it goes beyond that. Are not the Government against selection per se? In fact, judging from many of their statements today, they are against it. I could quote from the proceedings in the Lords and elsewhere where they say that they want to get rid of selection at all stages of secondary education. But it is an illogical position to adopt because, at other times, they accept that within comprehensive schools selection is necessary.
      I recall the situation in Committee when the former Minister of State got himself tangled up by saying that in a case such as Birmingham—a Labour authority—it would be possible for pupils to transfer from their base schools for special subjects in other schools and that that was legitimate in Labour thinking within the terms of the Bill provided that they always kept going back to their base schools, but that if it meant that they left their original schools and transferred to schools where there were specialists in certain subjects, that was not within the terms of the Bill and was frowned upon by the Government.
      In the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander reflected many of the worries which have been expressed to me by local education authorities. Many noble Lords felt that there would be other illogical positions—for example, in sixth form colleges. Unlike the Government, who suggested that only three or four were selected, Lord Alexander felt that in a way the vast bulk of them had selective policies in that they would not allow people in for A-level courses if they did not have a requisite number of 0-levels. That is an element of selection. The Minister of State in the other place, Lord Donaldson, ended up by saying that it would be perfectly permissible for open access colleges to set standards for admission to particular courses. The Government are saying, in other words, "We shall not have selection for schools but we shall have it for courses". That is a nonsensical position to adopt.
      It is to try to get over that problem that we want an amendment of this sort kept in the Bill. At least it gives an opportunity for local authorities to have regard to matters other than the narrow doctrinaire principles at present in Clause 1. It might be that other amendments
      262
      could do that. But, if parents and other forces locally express a wish for specialisms in schools, some provision should be made. I think that we shall move into that sort of era, because not all comprehensive schools will be able to offer the whole range of courses.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) put it rather well when he pointed out that many schools were now very small. We are moving away from the notion of the monster school. Therefore, a smaller unit will not be able to offer the width of provision to be found in a larger school. There is the inheritance factor. In the amalgamation of schools, some comprehensives do not have the grammar school element. They do not have specialised staff in mathematics and the science subjects. Therefore, it will be difficult to provide opportunities in those schools for pupils who might have the capacity and potential for those subjects. Why not make use of the best provision in certain schools in an area and transfer pupils to those schools, even though that might involve some element of selection for those special courses?
      If we are moving into that sort of era, it is only right that local authorities should feel able to have that sort of system. The climate in which local authorities operate is very important in terms of whether they turn primarily for their instructions to the centre or look outside to other forces such as parents and employers in the community. This amendment would allow that element of flexibility which we believe is vital to the education system but which the Government are flouting in moving into a doctrinaire era.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: I not think that we can honestly say that we were not warned that we might reach the present position in discussing this amendment. It must be remembered that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) warned the House on Third Reading that, even if the Bill were passed with the support of Government Members representing 38 per cent. of the popular vote at the last General Election and that of Liberal Party Members representing a further 20 per cent. of the popular vote, making a total of nearly two-thirds of all those who voted in the General Election,

      263
      we had not heard the last of this measure because the Opposition would wield the Conservative majority in the House of Lords.
      That is the situation that we have today. With the exception of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, today's speeches have not been directed towards a minor amendment dealing with a minor detail in the Bill. They have all been Second Reading speeches on the principles of this legislation.
      It is clear that what is intended by this amendment is some limitation on Clause 1 which would abolish selection at the age of 11 and ensure that in certain circumstances there would be an opportunity for a selective system to exist in certain parts of the country. I maintain that that is a contradiction of the principles behind the Bill and represents a clear challenge to the fundamental position adopted by a majority of this House.
      When we look at the proposition which the Opposition put forward in support of this amendment, it should be recognised that its rôle is not merely to reinforce the 1944 Education Act. The hon. Member for Chelmsford constantly regales us with the view that the 1944 Act represents the collective wisdom of all the parties involved in its passage, and that it had stood the test of time. But under that Act, it was possible for 80 per cent. of parents to attempt to choose grammar school education, and local authorities could deny parental rights in those terms.
      6.0 p.m.
      It is quite clear, therefore, that the 1944 Act never was a defence of parental rights in quite the way the hon. Member for Chelmsford suggests. Indeed, he re-emphasised this point in reply to a friendly intervention from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), who indicated that the local authorities had the final job of allocating which children went to which school. The hon. Member for Chelmsford conceded that. Despite the Opposition's apparent concern for parental choice, they recognise that under the 1944 Act the final responsibility rested with the local authorities, and that the authorities had no option but to enforce
      264
      their duties in this respect. Why then is this amendment being proposed now?
      I suggest that there are two reasons for it. It is part of a general attempt by the Opposition to assume for themselves the prerogative of representing parents in the educational debate. That is utter rubbish. The hon. Member for Chelmsford often points out that he is in favour of parents participating in governing bodies of schools, yet local authorities throughout the country under Conservative control repeatedly reject such a proposition. This is a position which cannot be sustained by the Opposition. In fact, Government Members are rather more concerned with increasing the rôle of parents in developing their children. This Government have set up the Taylor Committee to look at membership of governing bodies in schools, and this Government are concerned with the real development of parental choice in guiding children through the most appropriate courses of education.
      Secondly, the Opposition are continually preoccupied with the question of choice because in a very real sense they conduct their own private lives, in regard to education, in terms of the crucial issue of choice of school. In the sector of education which generally they represent and of which they are the major product—the sector which sustains the establishment of this country at present—parental rights end at the point when the choice is made between schools. It is the power of the nurse to choose a particular school, and not the power of the parent to influence the education which the child receives from that school.
      This amendment must be rejected, not because it does not involve an important concept of the rights of parents but because it attempts to elevate that concept about what the 1944 Act envisaged, and above what local authorities can carry out. This is an attempt to wreck the very reasonable proposition which the Government have put forward in favour of comprehensive education.
      Mr. Paul Channon: If what the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) said is right, I would not be opposed to elevating the rights of parents, and, in fact, giving parents far greater rights to choose than those which

      265
      exist at present in all sectors of education. That is why this amendment is particularly relevant.
      I ask the Secretary of State to explain how she can possibly reconcile what she said at the beginning of the debate about the various principles governing this Bill being equally compatible. How can it be equally compatible with the wishes of parents to compel a comprehensive system of education in all areas in this country? There are certain areas where the wishes of parents are known with crystal clarity. In my constituency there was a poll of parents, and as a result we know for a fact what their wishes are on this matter. A total of 12,911 parents voted for the retention of some form of selection in education, and only 4,479 voted for a totally comprehensive education system. In these circumstances, am I not entitled, as the representative of my constituents, to say that I know clearly the views of parents in my area? How therefore, is it possible to argue that the wishes of parents are compatible with the adoption of a universal system of comprehensive education? Certainly in some towns the wishes of parents have been clearly expressed.
      Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
      Mr. Channon: I would prefer not to give way. I have very little more to say. In my own town the wishes of parents are crystal clear, and it is also clear that those parents are very pleased with the standard of education in our area.
      Surely it is right that there should be parts of the country in which there is some experimentation in education. If there had never been any experimentation, there would have been no comprehensive system in the first place. It is absolutely wrong to impose on the whole country at any one time a universal system of education no matter what the current educational fad may be.
      We are told by the Department of Education and Science today that the Secretary of State is conducting consultations with a view to closing no fewer than 30 more teacher training colleges. The number of student teachers will be cut even more dramatically, and will be back at the levels of 1961. If that is the case, what are the Department's priorities? Is it right to spend extra money on putting
      266
      through this Bill when there are other things in education which are being cut back? My constituents are entitled to have their views respected, and, in any choice of priorities at present, I am sure that they would prefer the extra money to be spent on more teachers and smaller classes than on bringing this Bill on to the statute book.
      I do not believe that without the amendment this Bill will be compatible with the wishes of parents in my town. The Government should have second thoughts about this matter and support what has been decided in another place.
      Sir G. Sinclair: I am glad to follow—and support—the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). He has spoken of the increasing demands of parents that their rights should be recognised and respected.
      The Secretary of State said that the amendment would make no difference to the Bill. I believe that she is wrong. She has entirely missed the point of the amendment. If accepted, it would reaffirm the paramountcy of parental wishes in the choice of school as an aim in education. Indeed, it would reaffirm the natural right of parents and would meet the growing demand that this right should be reaffirmed.
      Why is there this demand? It is because the Government, by abolishing so many varieties of schools, have seriously limited the choice of parents. This action and the parental reaction to it has made essential a restatement of Government policy about parental rights. That is why we call for a bold reaffirmation of the paramountcy of parental wishes if the Government are, as the Prime Minister suggested recently, again to respect parental wishes in education. I know that the Secretary of State does not regard this reaffirmation as being as important as we do, but hope that she will have second thoughts.
      The Bill mentions nothing about parental choice and it is not good enough to have a mere reference relegated to a footnote at the back end of the Bill. That is not enough in the present state of public opinion, which has been bruised by falling standards in education and bruised by limitations of choice.

      267
      Recognition by the Government in accepting this amendment that parents are worried about standards in many secondary schools would have a tonic effect throughout the secondary system, in both State and maintained schools. That is the positive side of the amendment.
      What did the Prime Minister mean in his recent speech at Oxford when he talked about parental choice? If he meant anything, he must have meant three things. First, I suggest that he meant the improvement of standards; for that is what parents are worried about. Secondly, he meant the widest possible choice of schools and courses to suit their children, especially while standards which have deteriorated are being improved. Thirdly, he meant a greater involvement of parents in the government of schools to allow them to take a real part in insisting on the development and maintenance of high standards in their children's schools. This is especially important if the standards of learning and conduct in schools in their neighbourhoods are failing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has brought out the educational importance of parental wishes and choice in our policy document, the "Parents' Charter". It is not just the brainchild of a few people concerned with educational standards. It is a response to wide-felt worries of parents throughout the country about standards in our schools—worries reinforced by many recent reports. It is to meet these worries that we seek to get parents more deeply involved in educational government and in choice of schools.
      If the Government do not recognise this parental factor in the Bill, they will be missing one of the deep, underlying movements within families and will eventually pay the electoral price for their neglect.
      6.15 p.m.
      The best service that the Secretary of State could do to the Bill is to recognise this new factor. She will have to fact it, whether she likes it or not. We hope that, with her knowledge of educational standards, she will, after reflection, accept the amendment and thereby re-establish in the public mind the Government's respect
      268
      of parental rights and give some substance to what the Prime Minister said in Oxford last month.
      The right hon. Lady should, in the interests of the greater part of secondary education, which is in the maintained sector, reaffirm the rights of parental choice and outline the steps that the Government will take to improve standards. Parental choice and improvement of standards are interdependent. Their main choice is that standards should be raised. But parents must be helped to make their choice effective over the whole range of our national educational resources. An important part of these resources—as everybody knows who has not had a closed mind on educational standards—is in the selective and independent sectors. They are part of our educational heritage and have been built up to a high standard over hundreds of years. In the selective sector, there are many good schools and many outstanding courses. It is no part of a Government's duty to deny parents access to such educational resources which are found both in the comprehensive and the selective sectors. We should be making use of them.
      If the Secretary of State were to accept the principle restated in the amendment, she would help to ensure that parents, by their proper choice, have the widest possible access to the best resources in education in whatever sector. That is the right of parents. These resources are part of our national resources. We must use them to the full advantage and not neglect them. One of the greatest unused resources in education is the will of parents to see standards re-established. If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to reaffirm that parental right, she will have missed an opportunity. Parents will recognise that; and so shall we, if we are forced to vote.
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he believed that the wording of the amendment was useful. If the protestations of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) could be taken at face value, the amendment would, as I said earlier, be unnecessary but conceivably acceptable.
      However, as I listened to the debate and particularly the remarks of the hon.

      269
      Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and Ripon (Dr. Hampson) it became increasingly clear that this was a doubtful proposition and the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said, there was a surreptitious motive behind the amendment became increasingly self-evident. I do not believe that what I heard from the Opposition was the expression of those who were converted in all cases to the comprehensive ideal.
      Somebody asked: why does it matter? The answer is quite straightforward. It matters for the reasons which have already been advanced from this Dispatch Box and by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who sat through most of the Committee stage, as I did not, at that time not being concerned with the Department of Education and Science. The Opposition intend to bury the comprehensive principle under Sections 76 and 8 of the Education Act.
      Dr. Hampson Dr. Hampson rose—
      Mrs. Williams: I shall not give way. I have given way enough. We intend not to bury Sections 76 and 8 under the comprehensive principle, but to have regard to all three. That is what the statute, if unamended, will clearly say. There is nothing wrong with that. As I said, we believe that the comprehensive principle and meeting the wishes of parents can effectively be done together.
      The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) made many comments with which I agree. But he made one remark which I found hard to accept. The hon. Gentleman somehow suggested that concern with parental choice was a monopoly of the Opposition. All I can say is that, for many years, it does not seem to have
      bothered them very much Year after year, when in Government, they permitted the selective principle to go on clearly against the wishes of parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) forcefully pointed out from her first-hand experience in surgeries, without any effective transfer at all. In consequence, many children lost for ever the opportunities of higher and further education because they attended schools where those opportunities were not open to them. One of the records which stand most solidly against the Conservative Party, which never attempted to introduce the comprehensive principle, was its total failure to grapple with the transfer between schools. That would have been the hallmark of any real desire to get parental choice into the system.
      Dr. Hampson Dr. Hampson rose—
      Mrs. Williams: I have already given way a great deal. I shall not give way again.
      Therefore, we are bound to the conclusion that the Opposition are supporting the amendment not on the ground that they have suggested—namely, their concern for comprehensive education—but on the ground that they would do everything possible to water it down. That we cannot accept. We believe that comprehensive schools offer both wider opportunities and more choice to children than any other system of education in this country. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to stand by me in rejecting the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 292.

      Division No. 378.]

      AYES

      [6.25 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Carter, Ray

      Allaun, Frank

      Boardman, H.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Anderson, Donald

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cartwright, John

      Archer, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Ashley, Jack

      Bradley, Tom

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cohen, Stanley

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Coleman, Donald

      Atkinson, Norman

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Buchan, Norman

      Conlan, Bernard

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Bates, Alf

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bean, R. E.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Cowans, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Campbell, Ian

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cant, R. B.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bishop, E. S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Cronin, John

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      John, Brynmor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cryer, Bob

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Radice, Giles

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Judd, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rooker, J. W.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Roper, John

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rose, Paul B.

      Dempsey, James

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Doig, Peter

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rowlands. Ted

      Dormand J. D

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ryman, John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lee, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dunn James A

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Selby, Harry

      Dunnett Jack

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Eadie Alex

      Lipton, Marcus

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Edge, Geoff

      Litterick, Tom

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Ellis John (Brigs & Scun)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Ellis Tom (Wrexham)

      Luard, Evan

      Sillars, James

      English, Michael

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      Ennals David

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Small, William

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Snape, Peter

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McElhone, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Fitch Alan (Wigon)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Flannery Martin

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Stott, Roger

      Fletcher L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Foot Rt Hon Michael

      McNamara, Kevin

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ford, Ben

      Madden, Max

      Swain, Thomas

      Forrester, John

      Magee, Bryan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh-

      Thomas Dafydd (Merioneth)

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

      Mahon, Simon

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Marquand, David

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tomlinson, John

      Ginsburg, David

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Tomney, Frank

      Golding, John

      Meacher. Michael

      Torney. Tom

      Gould, Bryan

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mendelson, John

      Varlsy, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Graham, Ted

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Ward, Michael

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Molloy, William

      Watkins, David

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Moonman, Eric

      Watkinson, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Weetch, Ken

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Weitzman, David

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Moyle, Roland

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      White, James (Pollock)

      Hatton, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Newens, Stanley

      Whitlock, William

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Hooley, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Horam, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

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

      Orbach. Maurice

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Huckfield, Les

      Ovenden, John

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Padley, Walter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Park, George

      Woof, Robert

      Hunter, Adam

      Parker, John

      wrigglesworth, Ian

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Parry, Robert

      Young David (Bolton E)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Perry, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Janner, Greville

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Mr. David Stoddart.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Prescott, John

      272

      273

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Alison, Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marten, Neil

      Arnold, Tom

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Males, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mather, Carol

      Awdry, Daniel

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Baker, Kenneth

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Banks, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Beith, A. J.

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Benyon, W.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Biffen, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Blaker, Peter

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Body, Richard

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hall, Sir John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moore. John (Croydon C)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Brittan, Leon

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mudd, David

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Nelson, Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Heseltine, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Hicks, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Higgins, Terence L

      Normanton, Tom

      Burden, F. A.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Nott, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Holland, Philip

      Onslow, Cranley

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Carson, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Osborn, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pardoe, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Clegg, Walter

      Hurd, Douglas

      Paltie, Geoffrey

      Cockcroft, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Cope, John

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Cordle, John H.

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

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Prior. Rt Hon James

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Critchley, Julian

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Crouch, David

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale. Julian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dunlop, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Durant, Tony

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knox, David

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lamont. Norman

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Emery, Peter

      Lare, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael (Mellon)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott, Nicholas

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Scolt-Hopkins, James

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loveridge. John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Shepherd, Colin

      Forman, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shersby, Michael

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Fox, Marcus

      McCusker, H.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Freud, Clement

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Speed, Keith

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      274

      275

      Spence, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Sproat, Iain

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wells, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Stanley, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Stokes, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Younger, Hon George

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wakeham, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mr. Fred Silvester and

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Mr. John Corrie.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wall, Patrick

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, leave out "or partly".
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I shall put my case briefly. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his arguments on Lords Amendment No. 1 averred his good faith in comprehensive education and he stood firmly by what he said in a recent broadcast on the "Today" programme. The point at which I began to have doubts about his good faith was that at which one might have doubts, living by the adage
      "By their fruits ye shall know them"
      —his extraordinary support for Lords Amendment No. 2. Despite his upholding of the comprehensive principle the hon. Member has shown a tendency to nod and wink at the opponents of the principle in the House of Lords. He cannot possibly argue that this is not a wrecking amendment.
      Not only is it seen by us as a wrecking amendment, but we have had strong support. The Liberal spokesman in another place said:
      "I think this is a wrecking amendment, even though that is not the intention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6th October, 1976; Vol. 394, c. 1339.]
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept the Secretary of State's good faith, and I hope that she will pay me the same compliment. I agree that there is an interpretation of the amendment, which would make it wrecking, but that is not the only interpretation, and it is not the interpretation that we place upon it.
      Mrs. Williams: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. His hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr.
      276
      Boyson) will be able to deploy the arguments for interpreting it in a different way. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, it is not unreasonable of me to say that that alternative interpretation could be placed upon it.
      The first reason is that if "partly" were to be taken out of the Bill the principle would have to be only that of the wholly comprehensive. Wherever there were a partial element of selection it would no longer be clear and unambiguous that selective arrangements were not acceptable to us. Obviously, in many schools there are many elements of selection other than those which we cover by the word "wholly"—for example, selection on the ground of sex, age or catchment area. In some cases there may be selection on the basis of ability in music and dancing, which is covered elsewhere in the Bill.
      I am advised that almost any school could argue that it did not come within the terms of the Bill if we accepted the amendment, and that is why I have described it as a wrecking amendment. I do not doubt the good faith of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but I have been advised that if the amendment remained in the Bill it would be capable of wrecking the entire purpose of the Bill.
      If I look with mild suspicion on another place, if not upon this House, it is because when Liberal peers moved an amendment to reduce what they described as the possible wrecking qualities of the amendment Conservative peers refused to accept it. I understand that the purpose of the Liberal amendment was to rule out the kind of interpretation which I have placed upon this amendment. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for me to assume that at least their Lordships knew exactly what they were doing

      277
      and had every intention of wrecking the Bill by sticking to this amendment.
      I believe that it is clear why we are so concerned about the amendment. It is at least open to the interpretation that it wrecks the Bill, and it was intended by another place to be open to that interpretation. We cannot accept it, even in the spirit of reasonable good will over the Bill, because we believe that it would be totally destructive.
      Dr. Boyson: In the spirit of reasonableness and good will, and with the approach of the Christmas season, I rise to try to assist Labour Members to save the general principle of comprehensives, which I do not think they will save unless they are wise enough tonight to make certain exceptions. If those exceptions are so disliked by the opponents of all selection that they kill them, the whole principle of the Bill will die.
      What will happen if there is no form of partial selection? Already we have had banding forced upon the Government in Committee. Some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee warned what the effect would be without it. I believe that it was the London Labour Members who applied particular pressure to make sure that some form of selection by ability balanced the intake in London schools. What is the alternative? In my constituency and many others there is selection by the purse. Schools may be called comprehensives, but one buys one's comprehensive with a house. If that is not a form of selection, I do not know what is. The only alternative is bussing, or dropping pupils by random helicopter. Either we have the neighbourhood comprehensive school or some form of bussing.
      It was interesting that in the guillotine motion yesterday this Bill was linked with that to end tied cottages. This Bill means tied comprehensive schools for children throughout the country, unless the intake is balanced in some way within a general comprehensive principle.
      For example, suppose that in an area there are two schools, both taking by catchment area. One has good mathematics courses and no language courses and the other, four miles away, has language courses but no mathematics courses of any consequence. Unless selection by aptitude for mathematics or languages is
      278
      allowed, a full education will be denied to as many children as Labour Members said were denied a full education under the 11-plus system.
      6.45 p.m.
      Originally it was intended that there should be comprehensive schools with 5,000 pupils, not 2,000. There was much logic behind them, in that they could provide a full range of courses. It has been estimated that a comprehensive school of 5,000 pupils with the age range 11 to 18 is needed for an O-level class in Greek perhaps not every school wants an O-level class in Greek, but most schools would like an O-level class in at least one language other than French. It is becoming doubtful whether that can be provided in London comprehensives. It becomes more difficult the smaller we make the comprehensives. The size is down to 1,400 pupils at Highbury Grove, and some schools of 750 pupils are now being built. We now have three-stream schools in London.
      The Secretary of State believed that there would be more choice with the comprehensive school than without it. I do not agree. There will be very little choice in the three-stream schools that are being introduced. I once worked out in Committee what would happen if we compared a 750-place grammar school, a 750-place comprehensive and a 750-place secondary modern. The most able children would have a choice of fewer courses in the comprehensive schools than at a grammar school of that size. The less able children would have less varied courses in the comprehensive schools than in the secondary modern. The only ones with more choice would be the average students. I do not blame the schools, but the idea that a vast variety of courses would be open to children of all abilities in such schools is not correct, and I was surprised that the right hon. Lady made the statement she did. There will be a great debate about how much choice in academic subjects there is in some of the comprehensive schools in the London area and other cities.
      I should like to give some of the latest figures that I have been able to obtain. I hope that we may be given later ones now that we are, I trust, moving towards open government, whichever party is in power.

      279
      An article by John Izbicki in the Daily Telegraph on Monday suggested that we should have more open government even in education. In 1968 there were fewer than 40 pupils in the upper sixth form of 77 per cent. of ILEA's comprehensive schools. According to the statement of the education officer, Dr. Briault, at that time, we need 40–45 students in the upper sixth to do 10 or 12 economic A-level courses.
      I suggest that all schools do a basic curriculum. My suggestion would not destroy the comprehensive principle. All schools, particularly small comprehensives, would in addition do specialised courses, which students would join at various years from various other schools in the area when they had developed an aptitude in those subjects. If that does not happen, I can see the death of sound academic study in many small comprehensive schools. Many other academics have said the same in recent years.
      I do not want to go into the subject of mathematics, which should be debated under Clause 4, except to say that it is a classic example of what I have been talking about. In Russia it is believed that ability in mathematics is discovered before ability in music, and I agree. Most of the children I have known who became splendid mathematicians were identifiable as being good at chess and mathematics at an early age. It is wrong to think that they can develop their talents in a general, all-ability school. Many such schools do not have the teachers to do it. What happens if such children are taught in the primary school by one of the 38 per cent. of teachers who entered colleges of education two years ago without O-level mathematics? No mathematical genius will develop in that situation. The ability flowers very quickly, and it must be cultivated. It reaches a peak at a much lower age than practically any other ability.
      The statement is also made that in Russia anyone who is not a violinist by the age of 11 is never likely to become a famous violinist. We in Britain must also identify ability. I suggest that in the case of specific ability the comprehensive school should have a subject in which it specialises and for which it is equipped and has the teachers to carry out.
      280
      To an extent children teach themselves, but I do not think that it happens naturally, otherwise we would not need schools. However, good mathematics students need good mathematics students around them—not only the teacher—in order to realise that they are not exceptional. Such pupils need an environment in which they can enjoy learning together with people of similar ability. This applies not only to mathematics but to practically every other subject, including languages.
      I was horrified when I read the statement of the deputy education officer of ILEA to the parents and staff of Godolphin and Latymer that Latin was the only language that was offered in that school. Linguists will not be trained in schools which teach only oral French up to O-level standard. I believe that linguistics is inborn, just as music is. It is a natural thing—not just of brain, but of ear. The ability to pick up an accent is something that a child is motivated with. If we are to have linguists we require more than academic standards. I also believe that children should be studying three or four languages by the age of 13 or 14.
      One of my daughters was studying four languages—three at O-level and one additional language, which she took purely for interest. That has been of great benefit to her. In the small comprehensive schools in many areas a variety of languages should be offered in order to develop a child's ability.
      Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) speaking to Amendment No. 2 or Amendment No. 3? It seems that he is straying to the argument that no doubt will be made when we discuss Amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) should be allowed to develop his argument. The House will see where we get to.
      Dr. Boyson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is wholly or partly what the argument is about. If the truth of what I am saying is so upsetting to the hon. Gentleman that he fears any further information, I sympathise with him. I am particularly concerned about technical education. That is something

      281
      that we shall have to consider, but I doubt whether every small comprehensive school will have either the technical equipment required or the teachers available. I would like to see a technical comprehensive school within the comprehensive system to which pupils with a distinct interest in technical education can go—pupils distinct from those who take a university degree in these subjects. Motivation is a great thing for children. If they are motivated, and if a curriculum is centred around a particular motivation, it would be to the advantage of both the children and the country.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: It might assist the hon. Gentleman in bringing his remarks to a conclusion if he would address himself specifically to the question: which schools, in his knowledge, at present select wholly by reference to ability or aptitude and not by reference to place of residence, or whatever? If the answer is "None", it is quite clear what the purpose of this amendment is.
      Dr. Boyson: I realise that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) sees himself as a Back-Bench psychologist. I see myself as someone talking to this amendment. The amendment relates to the question of "wholly or partly". There is no motivation in this. The hon. Gentleman may have motives in everything that he does but some of us concentrate on what we are talking about. Some of us concentrate on getting on with the job.
      I believe that exceptionally gifted children need some degree of selection to schools that give entry for a group of between 30 and 40 gifted pupils in all subjects. Otherwise, I believe that they will under-perform. My experience has been that 50 per cent. of the most gifted children under-perform. As Professor Margaret Branch has said, this will happen if a child's ability is not developed at the proper time.
      Similarly, where boys show a particular aptitude for sport, I believe that they should be encouraged to go to schools that develop that aptitude. This has already been recognised to some extent. Both Lancashire and London are running courses for pupils in comprehensive schools specialising in certain subjects. Evening classes are now being
      282
      held. In my own school such classes are being held in science. In Lancashire and London there are summer residential schools in science and mathematics for pupils who are particularly gifted in those subjects. But we should consider whether we should send such distinct groups to a special school instead of sending them to classes in the evenings or in the summer.
      The problem is always one of teachers. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches will argue that the job of teachers is to teach children. Certainly in primary schools the job of the teacher is to teach a whole range of subjects. However, in the upper secondary school there are teachers with an interest in a particular subject. If their interest is such that it is exceptional, this will be recognised by the pupils and the pupils will gain from it. If we try to force teachers to teach in all-ability schools we shall not succeed They will become part of the brain drain. What such teachers want to do is to get the specially gifted child at an early age.
      I believe that exception will have to be made in this respect, otherwise there will be a backlash against the overall principle of comprehensive education. I suggested comprehensive school experiments 20 years ago, when the idea was generally unpopular. When it became popular I became slightly sceptical and now the public is becoming sceptical of the consequences of comprehensive reorganisation in certain areas. We must consider how we can retain the general principle while we do something for the gifted child—at the same time, otherwise there will be a backlash against the whole system.
      One thing is clear—we have never finished one form of school reorganisation in this country before we have started another. The idea that the comprehensive system will be the final achievement of mankind is not true. As was said, it was because there was flexibility in the tripartite system that the comprehensive system was tried.
      7.0 p.m.
      Without some flexibility, the comprehensive principle may become unpopular. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) mentioned its unpopularity in some parts of her area. Everyone

      283
      knows my views on selection and comprehensive schools, and presumably Brent, North, which is totally comprehensive, agrees with me. Perhaps I should not make that claim, but I would say that most people want to see how these schools work out.
      Alternatively, if the State system offers no means of dealing with the most able children, industry may have to offer scholarships to independent schools. Neither I nor my children have been to an independent school and I have never taught in one, but if we go on in this way, science and maths may die in the cities. Only 8 per cent. of Oxbridge opens came from comprehensive schools last year. Average children of general ability levels come from comprehensive schools, but not academically brilliant children, who are the seed corn for the future.
      The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, which I used a great deal in Committee, defines "comprehensive" as
      "having the attribute of comprising or including much; a large content or school".
      It is not a total concept. Some Labour Members seem to have the strange idea that the cup must be drained to the dregs even if it poisons the drinker. The comprehensive principle is a general one, which says that, other things being equal, it is better for children to be taught in the same school. We agree with that principle for mentally and physically handicapped children, but the principle must allow for the fact that some children with exceptional attributes do not fit in.
      Dr. Hampson: The Government themselves accept that there are circumstances in which a system can be partly selective. That is why they amended the Bill to include Clause 2(6) and thus allow the banding system, which is partly selective.
      Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was indeed a recognition of the need for some form of selection. This is shown also by the exceptions that are made for ballet and music. I could understand the objections to our case more easily if those who made them did not believe in selection at all in any walk of life—for instance, if they proposed that MPs should be selected by random ballot. On second thoughts, perhaps some of them are.
      The Government have allowed selection for music and ballet and for the choir
      284
      schools. Now, 16 choir schools can go on singing—that was the great concession of our 84 hours in Committee. One might work out how many octaves an hour we achieved.
      There are two alternative views of the comprehensive school. One is that it gives equal opportunity for all children to be different and to develop their talents. The second is that it is a place where all children have their snouts pushed into the same education whether they like it or not. I take the first opinion. I believe that the comprehensive ideal existed in the beginning and that the principles should still exist, so that all children have an equal opportunity to develop to the full and to be different.
      There is nothing contradictory in accepting the comprehensive principle and wanting children to have the opportunity to be different. Without that provision, we should be like Henry Ford, saying "You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black." Some children do not want just the one colour. They have exceptional talents. If the comprehensive school cannot be shown to build up such attributes, the overall principle will suffer. Far from being a wrecking amendment, this may be the one amendment that will save the Bill.
      Mr. John Stokes: I think that we have all greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). Whenever one speaks in this House from experience and knowledge one is listened to.
      These Lords amendments are fundamental not just for the Bill but for our society. After all, we are dealing with the future generation—with children who will take our place in 10 or 20 years. The decision we make tonight will obviously greatly affect their future.
      We are holding this debate at a time when the country has almost reached the bottom. One of our great assets is the brains of our people, particularly the brains of our children, coupled with their inventiveness and originality. Surely it is the Government's duty not to try to knock that asset on the head. To enforce a rigid comprehensive system throughout the country would, as experience shows, further lower education standards. We simply cannot afford not

      285
      to cherish our brightest children. Our future as a nation depends on them. I say this particularly when we are fighting for our economic life and for our future as a country.
      Obviously, there must be some form of selection in any system of life, just as there is always, in life, some form of discrimination. Both are fundamental parts of human nature, and cannot simply be legislated away as if they never existed.
      We on the Conservative Benches believe—we have much support outside—that selection is essential for excellence. No one, for instance, would dream of selecting the England cricket team on a comprehensive basis. Even in the Soviet Union selection is practised throughout education. All should certainly have an equal opportunity, but that is quite different from all pretending to be equal. I fear that abolishing selection will mean the rule of the lowest common denominator and the emergence of mediocrity. I think that the Government know this themselves; hence the exclusion of music and dancing.
      Why are only music and dancing excluded? Why not maths, languages, chemistry, physics and many other subjects? That shows the weakness of the Government's case. We have heard from the Prime Minister that he has had second thoughts on education. Even after yesterday's guillotine motion many of us hoped that the Government, particularly with the new Secretary of State, would take a more flexible attitude to these important amendments.
      I have found in my constituency, which suffered greatly from educational experiments, the sadness and detriment which they cause the mass of the people. I think that they hope that this trend towards a comprehensive, universal system will be muted, and that there will be some compromise. The Lords amendment is an attempt to do just that. As do so many other amendments made in the other place, it reflects the feelings of ordinary people much more than the Government do.
      We want essential safeguards for parents and children. Smooth words uttered by the Minister will not count unless they are written into the Bill. The Opposition oppose compulsion and
      286
      uniformity. We believe that parents want choice and variety. We see great dangers in only one type of school—the comprehensive school—being allowed in future.
      Mr. Noble: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) let the cat out of the bag. The example he chose of the English cricket team was particularly unfortunate. The real problem with cricket is the selectivity involved in membership of the MCC and the Selection Committee.
      I want to refer generally to the Opposition's comments on comprehensive education and to the Lords amendment, which is a further attempt to interpose selection. Those of us who had the pleasure of attending the Standing Committee regularly were able to witness the clever way in which the Opposition chipped away at the principle of comprehensive education. That has been the traditional attitude of the Tory Opposition to comprehensive education, certainly in the Chamber, if not among all the education authorities.
      This year we had the distasteful experience of the events at Tameside. Opposition Members who talk about experimentation should consider what is happening to many children in Tameside because of the foolish and cruel attempt to impose selection, thus depriving many children of grammar-school type education, albeit in a comprehensive system. Opposition Members who cannot fully oppose comprehensive education step back a yard and argue on the principle of co-existence. That is the principle that the amendment seeks to establish.
      In the early days people were happy to establish a comprehensive school, albeit within a system which was not entirely comprehensive. As time has gone on it has become widely accepted that a truly comprehensive school can exist only within a comprehensive system. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) referred to this in Black Paper Two, "The Crisis in Education". He said:
      "A balanced ability intake is essential. Each local authority has the choice of a bipartite system of grammar and secondary modern schools or of full comprehensive schools in its area. One cannot have grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools or the latter will be nothing but misnamed secondary modern schools."
      Dr. Boyson: I wrote that, and I stand by what I wrote. I was arguing for each comprehensive school to have a particular speciality, even technical comprehensive schools. There is nothing in what I said that goes against that. Perhaps we need another Black Paper in the spring to explain it more clearly to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).
      Mr. Noble: What the hon. Member for Brent, North wrote there is exactly in line with what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said. He does not want a comprehensive system of education because only that system will give all children the full opportunities which Labour Members want them to have.
      We were told at one time that a 10 per cent. creaming off would be acceptable and that it would not affect the intake of comprehensive schools. Of course it affects the intake. I disagree with what my hon. Friends said about banding. We have to concentrate on the opportunities which the children will have. If children are not available for a comprehensive school and are creamed off, we damage the chances of the children who are being educated in the comprehensive sector. That is what the amendment is designed to do. It is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Brent, North to say that there should be an enquiry into comprehensive education when he is not comparing like with like. A creamed comprehensive school which has lost 10 per cent. of the most able children is not a truly comprehensive school.
      When Robin Pedley did an investigation into this issue the Black Paper attacked him for choosing untypical comprehensive schools, although he chose only those where there had been no creaming.
      If the amendment goes through, a selection system will be retained which will greatly damage comprehensive schools. I therefore hone that the House will reject the amendment.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise briefly to support the case put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). The House has the advantage of his teaching experience and of his having come from what
      288
      might be described as a deprived background. The educational views that he expressed are based on his experience in various areas and facets of education. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to what my hon. Friend said immediately before sitting down. The amendment is in no way a wrecking amendment. I do not like comprehensive education, but in the other place and in our deliberations on the Lords amendments we have accepted that the House has agreed that the Bills shall go forward. We seek only to improve it.
      The amendment is necessary to stop the comprehensive system creaking to a halt and breaking asunder. I had hoped, with the Prime Minister's intervention in the education arena and the change of Secretary of State—the right hon. Lady has a reputation for both moderation and good sense—that the Government would show a more reasonable and flexible attitude to the amendments.
      How does the Secretary of State believe that the comprehensive system will work? If she accepts, as many teachers and educationists do, that the large comprehensive school cannot work, how will the full range of courses be provided in every school, whatever its size? Is it not inevitable that there will be some form of selection to allocate children who are keen on languages to one comprehensive school and those who are keen on mathematics, science and physics to another? Otherwise, there will not be enough highly qualified, motivated teachers to staff all the comprehensive schools, even if we could afford it, which we cannot. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the great restraints on public expenditure.
      If, as the Secretary of State said earlier today, comprehensive education will provide more choice, not less, how will that be achieved without the money and without the skilled and motivated teachers in specialised subjects? It will be impossible for every type of course to be provided at every school.
      I hope the right hon. Lady appreciates that some of us have been involved in education outside this place. I was involved as a county councillor for six years, sitting as chairman of the board of governors of a non-selective school, as well as being on the governing body

      289
      of Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, founded in the late 1500s.
      Perhaps this proves one of the points that the Secretary of State made earlier. These two schools had different environments, different atmospheres and different motivations. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates that situation. There were courses offered at the non-selective high school which were not offered at the grammar school, and certain pupils from the grammar school attended those courses at the high school. Likewise, some of the high school pupils showed a leaning towards academic subjects that were taught at the grammar school, and they were able to attend it for those subjects.
      Are we not now, in this Bill, producing a situation where we will get the worst of all worlds—where the Secretary of State tries but necessarily fails to provide a full range of courses in every school? Should we not have some form of course selection built into the Bill?
      We are not arguing about the principles of comprehensive education, we are arguing about the details of the Bill, so that when it becomes law it will do the least harm and the most good. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay some attention to what I consider were reasonable and sensible points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. Where will the money come from to make her dream a reality? Where will all the qualified teachers who are to teach the range of subjects come from to make the system work?
      Surely the Secretary of State realises that the money will not be available. Will she not admit that this amendment will make possible the arrival of this Bill on the statute book? The Secretary of State must not forget that we are debating our children's future.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: If this were a serious debate on comprehensive education by two sides which, although differing slightly, were in agreement on the general principle, it would be much more enlightened and serious. It is instead a repetition of the many long and weary hours of debate that we have spent on this subject—I think about 163 hours—on which the two sides fundamentally differ. The Opposition are not trying to help along compre-
      290
      hensive education, as they repeatedly say, by putting forward enlightened amendments which would make comprehensive education better. On the contrary, the Opposition have returned once again to an onslaught against comprehensive education which they hate. For many years the Labour Party has been advocating comprehensive education as a humane and compassionate method of educating more and more children at a higher and higher level. The Opposition are trying, by every means in their power, to hold up or to get rid of comprehensive education. But they have no chance whatsoever of returning to what they dearly want. It has gone. They are fighting a long, weary rearguard action with no hope of success.
      The Bill will go through without these backward amendments which the Opposition support. They say over and over again that they believe in comprehensive education, yet attempt to introduce selection and elitism in education by altering a word here or there. There will be other amendments of that nature. We shall prevent this from happening because we shall show continually—and long after this debate has finished and we have won—that comprehensives are developing in a natural progressive manner which will make them more and more acceptable to wider groupings of people, including a large number of Tory voters.
      It is not true—-as one hon. Gentleman suggested—that there were Tory councils which pioneered comprehensive education. I shouted out then "Tell us where they are." I am sure that some time in some debate Opposition Members will tell us about them. I have not heard of them, and I have been in comprehensive education since the end of the war.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is so blind that he cannot see.
      Mr. Charles Morrison Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)
      rose—
      Mr. Flannery: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Charles Morrison Mr. Charles Morrison rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way he cannot be pressed to do so.
      Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has a long list of such councils and, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt he will read out the list.
      In comprehensive schools at present there are natural and normal problems arising from the process of development which the Opposition ought to help us to solve in a proper manner. We admit that we had opinions on the size of comprehensive schools which are in the process of being changed. There is still a large number of people who believe that comprehensive schools should be big.
      The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who marshalled his points very ably, said that in many schools the sixth form is still far too small. He knows as well as I that we originally wanted to have big schools so that there could be sizeable sixth forms where we could get the best results. Despite other things militating against that, the good results were forthcoming, as any hon. Member may see in the Library.
      We are worried about streaming. The hon. Gentleman should put forward good reasons instead of futile amendments. We would welcome these on, for example, the number of courses in schools. We are grappling with this problem and with many others besides, such as size, streaming and courses. The Opposition could turn their minds to that and make a progressive contribution to advancing the cause of comprehensive education which they say they believe in. Instead, they strike a blow at its bowels.
      Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember, as we looked across amiably at one another through the long, tedious speeches of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), that it was suggested that we ought to have dinner and leave the hon. Gentleman speaking because he would still be speaking when we came back. The hon. Gentleman will remember that his speeches were so long.
      Arguments were put forward for truant schools. The hon. Member for Brent, North said that he went to a truant school and he showed me some photographs. There was discussion of schools for arsonists and so on.
      Mr. George Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Flannery: Just to show how warmhearted I am, I shall give way.
      Mr. George Gardiner: I am a little puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying about streaming in schools. Earlier in his remarks he spoke about the march of progress in comprehensive schools—I am not sure in what direction. Is he advancing an argument for abolishing selection in schools and for having mixed ability classes throughout comprehensives?
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Flannery: I am not. The word "selection" has a varying connotation according to which side is talking. Conservative Members would relegate 80 per cent. of children to an inferior education and allow 20 per cent. of children, among whom would be their own children, to go to private schools. That is the process of selection against which we are struggling. We are winning because most people agree with us.
      The Opposition are in process of retreating from one position to another. They will never give up. They will adopt new positions as the situation develops, but they must admit that they have been overrun on this matter. We are merely registering the fact that that has happened.
      Fundamentally, the Conservative Party is totally against the comprehensive idea because it believes in an elitist education. We do not. We prove our case in every speech, but the Opposition, by every word they say, make clear that they are trying to get rid of comprehensive education and to re-establish the system they want. I believe that the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science are correct, and I profoundly agree with her.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not often welcome the presence of many Labour Members, but I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) in the Chamber rather than teaching my children. I hope that my children will receive an education that shows both sides of an argument.
      Mr. Flannery: They will be in a grammar school, no doubt.
      Mr. Bottomley: I speak as one of the few Members of this House who started at a comprehensive school at age 11. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now apologise, Martin."] I am being provoked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, and I can only tell him that I am willing to send my children to a comprehensive school as long as I am not forced to do so. But if it ever gets to the stage when the State tells me that I have got to do something, I and many hundreds of thousands of people in Britain will do the opposite. I do not like being pushed around, nor do most British people. We do not like being led by a Government who pay no attention to our views.
      Last week during the by-elections I went to Newcastle, Walsall and Workington. When in Newcastle I stopped four boys who were working on a job creation scheme and showed them a canvassing card. I pointed to the address on the card and asked "Where is that road?" Two of those boys said "We cannot read". That is one of the major educational problems to which we could have devoted 164 hours of parliamentary time instead of using that valuable time to debate this Bill.
      The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said that she was worried about the families who came to see her in her constituency surgery because they could not get their children into a grammar school. The hon. Lady should talk to other parents and find out how many families are saying "We cannot get our child into a comprehensive school of our choice".
      We return to the lesson of the by-elections. The population is moving in a certain direction, and many people want their child to go to a particular comprehensive school because of the type of school it is or because of the way in which it is run, or because it is strong in certain subjects. But if the Government say: "We shall pay no attention to your views or to the by-elections", they are taking a big step along the road towards educational dictatorship: That is their reaction to the results of last week.
      When I am in my constituency in Greenwich, or where I live in Lambeth, or when I am in Tower Hamlets, which I know well, I talk to families and ask
      294
      them what they want for their children It is not always a matter of grammar school versus secondary modern, or comprehensive versus technical school. Parents are concerned about the kind of education they want for their children and have a pretty fair knowledge about what is available in various local schools. They also have a fair idea of their child's aptitudes or abilities. They also accept, as do the Government, that some pupils are late developers. In dancing and music one is still allowed to have selective schools at the age of 11, but the Government say that the same arguments do not apply to mathematics or other subjects.
      The example of Robert Catesby, a friend of Guy Fawkes, comes to mind for those who are interested in history because he went to university at the age of 13. It has been said in the various campaigns that a comprehensive education must be a good thing because one girl took A-level mathematics at the age of 12. But if at the same time one asks those in certain comprehensive schools "At what age are children allowed to take O-level mathematics?" one is told in some schools, but not all, that they are not allowed to do so until they are 17. The Government should provide the answer to these matters, but they do not.
      The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that results had been improving, but perhaps he will say why the number of A-levels in French have declined by 1,000 in the last five years. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that figure, he can look it up in the Library.
      Mr. Flannery: We will go together.
      Mr. Bottomley: I believe that both children and schools vary greatly. I believe that we should allow all who can do so to take all the steps forward that are open to them, and that we should encourage families to get their children to try hard at school. The dominant theme in all schools should be that of education, not necessarily straight academic learning.
      A little earlier in our discussions the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who is not now in the Chamber, demonstrated his academic training by swapping Latin quotations with my hon.

      295
      Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). How many comprehensive schools are teaching Latin, even up to O-level, let alone to a standard to enable pupils to take a university degree in classics? One finds that cultural matters are being wiped away because schools say "We are sorry but there is little demand for Latin here" or they say that there is little demand for academic mathematics. That is why O-level mathematics are taught to children in such schools only at the age of 17. However, those who are in favour of comprehensive education justify their claims by emphasising the case of one girl who obtained "A" level mathematics at the age of 12.
      It has been difficult for me to put questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science because of the truncation of our debate on this Bill. Even though the matter has been discussed for a total of 164 hours, there are still many people who hold strong views on this subject and who come to see their Members of Parliament and want answers from them. I hope that the Secretary of State will address her mind to those questions. I hope that she will say why special help can be given to a 13-year-old child to join an Olympic team and why early developers are allowed to specialise in music and dancing, and also explain why the Government continue to ignore the views of parents who express their views by making applications for their children to attend particular schools for other subjects.
      The Government are also continuing to ignore the votes of the electorate as expressed in Workington, Walsall, North and Woolwich. West. The Government have been on notice for 15 months. The Government in their manifesto and in many speeches claimed that they would bring down the rate of inflation. We know what happened there. It doubled. They also claimed to have unemployment under control. We also know that the figure there doubled. Furthermore, we have before us the awful fact that the value of the pound has sunk by a third.
      If the Government claim that the most important issue when people voted in October 1974 was education, they have had their come-uppance in the three by-elections they have lost. If they argue
      296
      that it was part of the package built on unemployment, inflation and the value of the pound, they should do the decent thing and resign, taking the Bill with them. If they will not do that, I hope that they will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Arnold Shaw: I thought for one moment that we were dealing with the second Lords amendment, but we have just heard an election speech from the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I do not know whether it was for the next by-election. Certainly it was a speech far removed from the subject in hand.
      In one respect I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). In fact, it is true that comprehensive schools were often pioneered by conservatives. In their experimental stage they were not a matter of party politics. However, they became such an issue v/hen the Tory Party began to recognise certain dangers. They began to recognise that an erosion of the grammar school would take place as parents saw much greater benefits in the comprehensive school. They began to see a certain bastion falling before what they considered to be a much more important sector of education, namely, the private sector. Many Conservative Members have attended public schools, and they would be loth to see that system disappear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said, that is what it is all about.
      It has been said by my hon. Friends that this is a wrecking amendment. That has been denied by Conservative Members, but the effect of the amendment would be to retain the present system, namely, the presence in the education system of comprehensive and selective schools. The Opposition believe that that is fine, because it preserves the status quo. In that way we should keep the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools, calling them high schools or comprehensive schools, without there being any difference from the present system.
      If the Government accepted the amendment it would virtually wreck the Bill. I have been looking forward to a Bill of this sort for many years and I should be loth to see an amendment of this sort inserted.

      297
      Another interesting feature is that the amendment has come from another place. It is interesting that in the various debates on the many Bills that have come before their Lordships, the greatest muster of Tory peers has appeared on this Bill. I wonder why. Why should education have been more important than aircraft and shipbuilding, for example? Perhaps it was so decided because it came to their Lordships following the clarion call from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who called upon their Lordships to do their stuff in another place and to defeat the objective of this place. Noble Lords tramped through the Lobbies in great numbers not because many of them recognised the merits or otherwise of the Bill, because they have no experience of comprehensive schools—
      Mr. Flannery: Or of State education.
      Mr. Shaw: That is so. In my opinion the whole thing is "phoney". This is the culmination of the hours and hours of laborious verbiage that we heard from the Opposition. That verbiage is now being repeated. I shall go into the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who moved the rejection of the amendment.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I shall follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) to some extent, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go further than that. It would seem to be just about as irrelevant to talk about an abundance of Tory peers taking an interest in this Bill as to speculate upon the reason for there being so few Labour peers present throughout consideration of all the Bills that we are to consider this week in this place. The quality of the arguments that lie behind the amendment that has been made in another place would seem to be more important to the parents of the children whose future we are now debating.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who we know has experience of teaching. I hope that he has not been let loose as a historian upon children. I could not help feeling that if the process of the improvement and advancement of comprehensive education had been so in-
      298
      evitable, implacable and irreversible as he said, there would have been little reason for the Bill's being brought forward.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman will not accept this, although I trust that the Secretary of State will, but all of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that comprehensive schools can be good schools. Most of us know examples of comprehensive schools that are good schools. I can speak only for Kent, part of which I represent. I ask the House to take into account the example that that county provides.
      As the right hon. Lady knows—at any rate, the knowledge is available to her—in Kent we have shown ourselves to be in favour of comprehensive reorganisation where appropriate. In the majority of areas forming the education authority, the county has gone comprehensive. However, in four areas, following the most exhaustive consultation with parents, the education authority has declined to submit schemes for comprehensive reorganisation.
      The right hon. Lady will know the extent to which consultation has taken place. I have with me the papers that relate to that process, but I shall not weary the House by reading them. It may be that the Government cannot conceive of an elected legislature testing the opinion of those who elected it, but that is what happened in Kent. The results have been overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of the selective scheme in the four areas where selective schools have have been maintained.
      I shall refer to one area by name—Cranbrook. I do so not to make a local constituency point but to make a point that is relevant to the debate. In Cranbrook the Thamesside scheme has operated. That means that there is a high school and that at the age of 13 the parent decides whether his child shall go to the upper school. That is decided in consultation with the education authority and the teachers. It is a tripartite operation, and the wishes of the parents are taken into account.
      I wish to assure the right hon. Lady—I congratulate her on remaining in the Chamber throughout the debate—of the extent of opinion in favour of the Tame-side scheme continuing to exist in Cranbrook and the surrounding area served

      299
      by it. It is a system that depends partly—that is the wording in the amendment—upon selection. At the end of the general public meeting that was attended by about 600 people, not one voice was raised from among parents, or from among what I might call the laity, in favour of change to a comprehensive scheme. Two voices were raised in favour of changing the Thamesside scheme, which has been in force for only three years, and they came from teachers at the high school. Not one voice was raised to that effect from the customers, if I may put it in that way.
      That is the feeling that runs throughout my constituency. It is extraordinarily hard to understand the theory that lies behind the Government's insistence on going completely comprehensive regardless of what is required by the parents in the areas concerned. It is very difficult to understand the theory. I want to deal with three points raised today in justification of it, not in order to go back to the previous debate but to deal with the arguments put forward generally, which are as germane to this amendment as to the last.
      First, it is said that the selective system provides very little choice, anyway, because it applies to only 20 per cent. of the children, and what choice does someone have who wants his child to go to a selective school but cannot get him in? That argument is fallacious. While selective schools survive, one has the choice of an alternative to the State school to which one prefers one's child to go and which will accept him if he satisfies the educational criteria that it requires. If such a school did not have these criteria, one would not want one's child to go there. To say, therefore, that one has been denied one's choice because one's child has not been accepted by a selective school is absurd. If he had been accepted simply because he had asked to go there, one would not have wanted him to go there in the first place as an alternative to the State school.
      Is there not a comparison to be made with the question of direction of labour? Surely, if the choice were between the direction of labour and a free market for labour, we would all say that we wanted a free market, because direction of labour denies the right of free choice.
      300
      The argument is not diminished by the fact that we cannot all get the job we want. That is the true comparison. One wants to get one's child into a selective school. That does not mean to say that because it may be rejected we should be denied the right of choice.
      It is also said that the distribution of selective schools is uneven throughout the country. But that does not quicken the right hon. Lady's argument. If it is a good thing to have selective schools, one overcomes that disability by increasing the number of selective schools and not by destroying those that exist.
      Thirdly, it is argued that the comprehensive school offers a wider choice than does the present divided system. It may do, and we hope that in some cases it does. But we also know that in many cases it does not. In the present economic situation, the right hon. Lady will, if she is honest, acknowledge that in the medium term there is no prospect of resources being made available significantly to improve the scope and services of comprehensive education in the schools available.
      People who say that those who support selective schools in my constituency or in any other are doing so from some irrational or snobbish reason are underestimating them, and in doing so they are making a profound and damaging mistake. If they tear down what is indubitably good because only 20 per cent. of the children can attend these schools, when we know that we cannot significantly improve the schools to which the remaining 80 per cent. of the children go, they are doing dreadful harm to the country.
      The right hon. Lady said
      "By their fruits ye shall know them."
      She was referring to the Opposition Front Bench. That is right—but the saying goes for the Government as well. The right hon. Lady will, I hope, realise that we are not to be consoled by the knowledge that in the fullness of time the Government will be shown to have been wrong, because, unfortunately, our own children and their children in generations to come will be known also by the fruits of the Government policy. They will be known by reason of the fact that the brightest of them have not been able to reach their full potential, not because of their own fault but because their

      301
      chances have been prejudiced by a doctrinaire and dogmatic education policy, forced through in the teeth of all the evidence.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: In the thirteen years I have been here, I have risen to my feet to speak on the subject of comprehensive education on about half a dozen occasions. I think that, without exception, on each occasion in the end I have managed to incur the wrath of both sides of the House. That being so, and because I prefer to be loved rather than hated, I have played no part in the debates so far on this Bill. I had no intention, when I came into the Chamber this evening, of taking part in the debate, but, having listened for a few minutes to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), I feel impelled to do so.
      I think that I can best make my point by first of all introducing myself to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he knows me. He may know that I am the Member for Devizes, but obviously he does not know, judging by what he said, that before I came here I was chairman of the education committee of the county of Wiltshire. Contrary to the tone of his remarks, way back before he was thought of as a Labour Member, way back before Labour Governments were even thought of, way back in 1961, my county education committee decided that the time was right to consider alternative forms of secondary education. It considered alternative forms for about two years before it reached conclusions.
      To emphasise the point I am making, which is that there is no hatred of comprehensive education on this side of the House, I would point that, during the course of our deliberations, we visited a number of other local education authorities throughout England. With one exception, they were all Conservative-controlled, and all had one type or other of comprehensive education. So, even before Wiltshire began to consider secondary education, other Tory-controlled councils had introduced it, in some cases many years before then.
      What is more, not only had they introduced it but there was a comparison, which the hon. Gentleman would think favourable, with, in some cases, adjacent local education authorities which were
      302
      Socialist-controlled and where comprehensive education had not even been thought of. One example of this was that the Leicestershire County Council, Tory-controlled, had comprehensive education, whereas the Labour-controlled city of Leicester still retained the grammar school—secondary modern system.
      In these remarks at least I have shown that I have some background of support for the principle of comprehensive education, and I want to make only one other point because time is short. After these 13 years of a gradual changeover towards comprehensive education in the county of Wiltshire, it is the considered view that the quality and standard of secondary education in that county has at least been maintained and perhaps improved. It is very difficult to judge, because the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the number of candidates for GCE has naturally increased very considerably over the years. It is difficult to know precisely what the situation would have been if there had not been a change.
      It is the considered objective opinion in the county that the standard of education has been maintained and perhaps improved, but—and this is the important point—it is also the view of the county of Wiltshire that that standard has been maintained, or possibly improved, only because the resources required for the changeover to take place have been made available.
      Here we are facing a situation in which the Government are putting the Bill forward without any chance whatsoever of providing the resources which will be required by the local education authorities which, if the Bill becomes law, will be forced to introduce comprehensive schools.
      I believe that the Bill is wrong because of that point in particular. I believe it is also wrong because in the ultimate it is much more important that the local education authorities should retain their discretion. They are far better fitted to know what is best for their areas than Big Brother sitting in Whitehall.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Lawrence: I think that somebody on the Conservative Benches ought to say just how much we appreciate the magnificent effort that their Lordships

      303
      made in order to provide us with an opportunity of at least seeking to persuade the Government to make some changes in the Bill. We appreciate especially the strength of their arguments—and in some respects the subtleness of their arguments—when seeking to show that, without destroying the underlying concept of the Bill, some effort could be made to introduce some good sense into it by maintaining some aspects of selectivity.
      I would find it very difficult to argue—I know that this is a view that is not necessarily shared by my colleagues, but it would be less than honest of me to deny it—that the amendment is not capable of being considered a wrecking one, in the sense that it goes a long way towards undermining the principle of the Bill, Nevertheless, I think that some of us are entitled to stand up on behalf of our constituents—and on behalf of the country at large, as their Lordships have done—and say that there are some aspects of the Bill—particularly the underlying principle of it—that ought to be wrecked.
      One of the aspects that I find so sad about this whole business is to see the right hon. Lady leading for the Government, because it is not just on the Conservative side of the House but in the country at large that a substantial proportion of the people look to her, and to one or two of her right hon. and hon. Friends, to maintain some elements of moderation in Government policy.
      There was a time when the so-called moderates in the Labour Party were prepared to stand up behind their leader and agree with him that the grammar schools would be abolished only over his dead body. But the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has gone from the Government. Alas, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) has gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is going."] The right hon. Lady remains. She must at some stage in her life have thought there was merit and credit in the selective system, or her daughter would not have gone to a selective school. The right hon. Lady has found it necessary to withdraw her daughter from that school in order to make it easier for her to fulfil the high office of Secretary of State for Education and to urge the passing of this Bill. I find that very sad.
      304
      I find it the sadder since it is, in my view, little coincidence that the policy which this Bill in fact manifests is the same as that which was enunciated by Marx and Engels in the nineteenth century—that there should come a time when the State had supreme control over education, and that education should in all its facets be of one kind and under State control.
      Whether or not that is a coincidence, it is a concept which I find impossible to support. It is repugnant to me, and any such concept introduced in a Bill of this kind will meet with my strongest and deepest objections. I am sure that it meets with the deepest objections of the overwhelming majority of the people I represent in Burton, and of the people of this country.
      One can understand how difficult it must be for the Secretary of State to pretend that the whole concept of selectivity is bad when, even in the Bill which she presents to this House, she finds it necessary to support some aspects of selectivity. It is necessary to be selective about dancing schools and about music schools. It is necessary, in Clause 2(6), to be selective about schools where there needs to be banding.
      It is very difficult to make exceptions to a principle as fundamental as the need for recognition, in our education system, that children are different and have to be catered for in different ways. It is very difficult to make some exceptions to that rule and justify not making others.
      Everyone in this House knows that if we are to achieve excellence in education there must be some element of selectivity at some stages of our children's teaching. I do not believe for a moment that there will be many heads of comprehensive schools who, at some stage or other, do not introduce streaming or setting, and who do not believe that the principle of mixed ability classes will not endure past the third or the fourth years. People who have spent their lives in education know full well that we have at some stage to be selective about the way we teach, the standard to which we teach, the subjects we teach, and the teachers who teach for us.
      It is very difficult for me, therefore, to understand the logic of the right hon. Lady and of the Government's stand in

      305
      resisting an amendment such as this, which seeks to extend the boundaries of selectivity to embrace not only the common sense of the situation but the wishes of the majority of the people.
      I end as I began, by saying "Thank God for the House of Lords". If we had not had a second Chamber—and there may well be argument as to how it ought to be constituted—the will of the people would never have been reflected in this Parliament as it is at present constituted. Not only the by-elections but the election of this Government in the first place, with the support of a mere 38 per cent. of the electorate, show that there is no mandate for the sort of extremism that is laid down in the Bill.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: I do not intend to keep the House very long, but I should like to pick up some of the points made in the debate. When the right hon. Lady opened, she said that she believed that this was a wrecking amendment. I am sorry that she thinks that, because her noble Friend in another place thought that this amendment was put forward in a constructive and meaningful way.
      What I think the right hon. Lady does not understand—and, indeed her right hon. and hon. Friends do not understand—is that we on the Conservative side are not against comprehensive education. This has been said consistently by my hon. Friends time and time again. Rather, what we want to do—we have made it clear throughout the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading—is to make sure that we can get the best out of the comprehensive schools.
      The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble)—I am sorry that he is not here—said that in Committee we on the Conservative side chipped away at the principle of comprehensive education. That was not the case, and I am afraid that he got it wrong again. What we did was to chip away at compulsory comprehensive education—and there is a tremendous difference between comprehensive education and compulsory comprehensive education.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said that the pity was that we had not spent a considerable amount of time talking about standards in education rather than just talking about the Bill. The fact is that in Com-
      306
      mittee we spent a lot of time talking about standards in education. But, sadly, what we had to listen to from Government supporters was dogma, dogma and more dogma.
      The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) said that comprehensive education was not a party political battle. But it became a party political battle when the threat of the introduction of compulsory comprehensive education appeared over the horizon, and that occurred when the Labour Party took office. So it is Government supporters who have brought the matter into the party political arena.
      I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), save to say that he managed in his short intervention to abolish entirely the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I wish that I had had my hon. Friend's sagacity and help in Committee. There were moments when I should have liked to achieve what he achieved in such a short time. It took me much longer to do so.
      The point of the amendment is to allow partial reference to ability or aptitude. It does not need to destroy the comprehensive principle. Exceptions have already been made for music and dancing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to them.
      We have heard a great deal about the Prime Minister's speech at Oxford. In the course of it he said that we were short of the right type of people coming out of our schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made this point cogently. But to get the right type of people coming out of comprehensive schools we shall need exceptions in areas other than just music and dancing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said, why not include maths, science and languages? I cannot see that there can be an argument against it.
      Nor can I see why the Secretary of State should oppose it by saying that this is a wrecking amendment. It must be right for the country. It must be right for children who are going through our schools at the moment and who will be going through our schools in the future.

      307
      Surely we must all agree that our children should have the best possible opportunities. The Opposition contend that this Bill will deprive children of those opportunities.
      If the right hon. Lady were to accept the amendment, there would be some chance of those with a particular aptitude in certain areas having those opportunities. They will be deprived of them unless the amendment is accepted.
      Thanks to the Government's guillotine motion, we are extremely short of time. As a result, the Opposition may not push the amendment to a Division. However, we shall listen carefully to what the Secretary of State says.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: There are two ways in which I can respond to this debate, and perhaps my best course will be to take each of them in turn.
      There was that part of the debate involving the first section of the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the one just made by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and certain other speeches by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The burden of what they said was in a sense in response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said—in other words, are there problems which can be solved by sensible arrangements between the schools?
      If I can take the politics out of this debate, the answer must be "Yes". Clearly there will be groups of children specialising in subjects which it is not possible to mount in every school—subjects such as Italian, or the classics—where it makes sense for schools to get together and agree that one will specialise in a course for all the children in that area. I am advised that there is nothing in the Bill which makes it impossible or which makes it any more difficult than it is today. My Department has encouraged that. It has encouraged the concept of linked courses between schools and further education colleges with a view to using equipment and specialised teachers in the most sensible way. I accept the points
      308
      made by sincere speakers in this debate about how to make the best fist of giving every child the widest range of choice whilst using our resources sensibly.
      It would be unreasonable to quarrel with speeches of that kind and, if this amendment could be interpreted as being about that, I would accept it happily. But it is not. Again we have the same difficulty as we did with Amendment No. 1. It is that the removal of the phrase "or partly" means that any school which selects other than wholly on ability or aptitude is then outwith the Bill.
      I ask the Opposition to try to understand why the Government describe this as a wrecking amendment. I am advised that it means that any school which selects on any basis other than ability or aptitude will thereby escape the effects of Clause 1. Obviously that is a totally impossible situation. Almost all schools in practice select on more than simply ability. Even comprehensive schools may select on the catchment area, single-sex schools on the basis of sex, and denominational schools on the basis of denomination. Even if they were wholly comprehensive in terms of ability and aptitude, this amendment would in practice mean that they would not be able to be brought within the terms of the Bill.
      That is the objection to the amendment, and if the Opposition wanted me to take them seriously, they should have tabled an amendment saying what they meant in terms of the ability of schools to specialise where either the number of teachers or the demand for courses was such that it would make sense for only one school in an area to run specialist courses for a number of youngsters in the area. There is no problem about this, and that was the point made very sensibly by the hon. Member for Brent. North, the hon. Member for Macclesfield and one or two others.
      But it turned out that this was a thin end of the wedge argument. We could accept the first stage of that. But the second stage was advanced in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, North and to some extent by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). It was the argument that we should have schools which were selective for gifted children—a special new kind

      309
      of selective school for very highly gifted children.
      The Opposition do not appear to understand that the whole purpose of comprehensive education is to enable children to learn from one another and to have in their midst the gifted, the less gifted, the privileged, the less privileged, those who have opportunities and those who do not. It is the straightforward principle of the leaven raising the loaf, and it has been shown time and again that this principle operates effectively in education.
      We then move to the third stage where we get beyond bounds which I should have thought were acceptable to even the Conservative Party. It was dealt with in the rather strange speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) and was touched upon by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It is the suggestion that we pick out an élite and educate them separately.
      In this respect, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge referred to the Soviet Union. I thought that it was understood in this House that the greatest single social objection to the pattern of the Soviet Union was the nature of its highly privileged bureaucratic class. Is it really the case that the Opposition want to sustain that? I wonder about it, because there is a certain similarity between wishing to sustain the separate education of an élite, whether in schools outside or inside the State system, and exactly what has been attempted by the Soviet Union. Government supporters reject the concept of separately educating an élite, whatever pattern it may take. It is unacceptable to us.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: But is it not true that the Soviet Union started with a general blanket comprehensive education policy, and was driven by the needs of the country to a more selective system, although it is called specialisation? Also, is it not true that to that extent this policy is being followed in the United States as well?
      Mrs. Williams: I do not accept that in its fundamental sense because the Soviet Union always had a difference between its rural and urban areas until
      310
      recent years, so it was not truly a comprehensive system.
      Part of the argument tonight is about whether we continue along the lines of social division, and the purpose of this Bill is to end social divisions in education. When I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) I noticed that he referred to the degree of choice available in Kent. But only 7 per cent. of Kent children are in comprehensive schools of any kind, including the denominational schools which have gone comprehensive, unlike most of the county schools. That cannot be described as offering any kind of choice. That is basically a selective system with a handful of comprehensive schools in certain areas.
      Listening to the Opposition I am bound to draw the same conclusion as Poincaré in his famous remark "the poor man is equal with the rich man before the majesty of the law in that it forbids both alike from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges."
      What hon. Gentlemen opposite refuse to accept is that we have a situation in which a substantial proportion of our children come from a deprived environment with deprived housing, and attend schools which are deprived of equal resources. To describe this as equal opportunity is to talk utter hypocrisy. In the selective system from beginning to end expenditure per head on secondary modern schools is consistently below that on grammar schools, and the children who most need their lack of opportunity offset get the least chance of having it. The comprehensive system is an attempt to give equal treatment. Therefore we commend the Bill to the House and reject what is bound to be, by its very nature, a wrecking amendment.
      I am not saying that all hon. Members opposite intend it to be so. All those who have spoken tonight probably do not mean to wreck the Bill by supporting this amendment. But if they support this amendment it is clear that as a result the great bulk of schools will be out of the scope of the Bill altogether. Hon. Members must be quite clear that that is what they are doing if they support the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 320. Noes, 280.

      Division No. 379.]

      AYES

      [8.23 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lamond, James

      Allaun, Frank

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Anderson, Donald

      English, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Archer, Peter

      Ennals, David

      Lee, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ashley, Jack

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Litterick, Tom

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bates, Alf

      Flannery, Martin

      Luard, Evan

      Bean, R. E.

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Beith, A. J.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Ford, Ben

      McCartney, Hugh

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Forrester, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McElhone, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Boardman, H,

      Freeson, Reginald

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Freud, Clement

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Garret, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bradley, Tom

      George, Bruce

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ginsburg, David

      Madden, Max

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Golding, John

      Magee, Bryan

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Gould, Bryan

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Buchan, Norman

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mahon, Simon

      Buchanan, Richard

      Graham, Ted

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Campbell, Ian

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marquand, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cant, R. B.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Carter, Ray

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Cartwright, John

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mendelson, John

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mikardo, Ian

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Millan. Rt Hon Bruce

      Cocks. Rt Hon Michael

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hayman, Mrs. Helene

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Coleman, Donald

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Molloy, William

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hooley, Frank

      Moonman, Eric

      Conlan. Bernard

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Corbett, Robin

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cowans, Harry

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Moyle, Roland

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Huckfield. Les

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cronin, John

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Newens, Stanley

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Noble, Mike

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ogden, Eric

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Davidson. Arthur

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Ovenden, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Janner, Greville

      Padley, Walter

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pardoe, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Park, George

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      John, Brynmor

      Parker, John

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Parry, Robert

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Dempsey, James

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Pendry, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Penhaligon, David

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Perry, Ernest

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Judd, Frank

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Dunn, James A.

      Kelley, Richard

      Prescott, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Eadie, Alex

      Kinnock, Neil

      Radice, Giles

      Edge, Geoff

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Snape, Peter

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ward, Michael

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Watkinson, John

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Weetch, Ken

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Stoddart, David

      Weitzman, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stott, Roger

      Wellbeloved, James

      Roper, John

      Strang, Gavin

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      White, James (Pollock)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Swain, Thomas

      Whitlock, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ryman, John

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Selby, Harry

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tierney, Sydney

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tinn, James

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tomlinson, John

      Woodall, Alec

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tomney, Frank

      Woof, Robert

      Sillars, James

      Torney, Tom

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Stiverman, Julius

      Urwin, T. W.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Small, William

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

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

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Paul

      Alison, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Arnold, Tom

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Heseltine, Michael

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Dunlop, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Awdry, Daniel

      Durant, Tony

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Baker, Kenneth

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hodgson, Robin

      Banks, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Holland, Philip

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hordern, Peter

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Benyon, W.

      Emery, Peter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Biffen, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Body, Richard

      Farr, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Bottomley, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      James, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

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

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Jessel, Toby

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Brittan, Leon

      Forman, Nigel

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'fd)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      Jopling, Michael

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kilfedder, James

      Budgen, Nick

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Burden, F. A.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Mark

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Carson, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Goodhew, Victor

      Knox, David

      Channon, Paul

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lamont, Norman

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gorst, John

      Lane, David

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clegg, Walter

      Gray, Hamish

      Lawson, Nigel

      Cockcroft, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Cope, John

      Grist, Ian

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Cordle, John H.

      Grylls, Michael

      Lloyd, Ian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hall, Sir John

      Loveridge, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Luce, Richard

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Critchley, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      McCrindle, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Hannam, John

      McCusker, H.

      Crowder, F. P.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hastings, Stephen

      MacGregor, John

      314

      315

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Spence, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Madel, David

      Percival, Ian

      Sproat, lain

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marten, Neil

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Stanley, John

      Mates, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Mather, Carol

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Maude Angus

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stokes, John

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Raison, Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mawby, Ray

      Rathbone, Tim

      Tapsell, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mills, Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Miscampbell. Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Moate, Roger

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Molyneaux, James

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Monro, Hector

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Viggers, Peter

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Wakeham, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Wall, Patrick

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Walters, Dennis

      Mudd, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neave, Airey

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Wells, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Newton, Tony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Normanton, Tom

      Shepherd, Colin

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Noll, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Silvester, Fred

      Younger, Hon George

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Sims, Roger

      Osborn, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. John Corrie and

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Speed, Keith

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1 line 21, at end insert
      "or such other ability or aptitude as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order designate."
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I beg to move. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss the Lords Amendment No. 7.
      Miss Jackson: The Bill already allows for the admission of pupils to schools where selection is based wholly or mainly on their ability in music or dancing as well as safeguarding the existence of special schools for other such special educational treatment. This amendment, however, provides for the extension of specialised provision and, indeed, of selection in a way which seems completely open-ended.
      316
      We discussed this issue, as well as the basic issues which arise on the amendment, at considerable length in Committee. We argue, as we have already argued today, that, although there is a recognised specialist need for early training in music and dancing, no such overriding need has been established for other areas of study. In addition, we argue that there is a need for all children to have as round an education as possible and not to confine themselves to academic specialities too severely or at too early an age. We consider that the dangers of too early specialisation far outweigh the advantages for the children involved as well as for society.
      Another equally serious issue of principle arises from the framing of this amendment. It would permit a future Secretary of State so to extend the number of grounds on which selection might be exercised as to make it possible to drive a coach and horses through the main principle of the Bill—the principle of non-selection—not by new legislation,

      317
      on which there could be prior consultation and full parliamentary debate, but by affirmative resolution of this House. If the amendment were to be retained in its present form a future Secretary of State could, in effect, repeal the Bill without the unpleasant necessity of arguing in any detail for its repeal before Parliament or the country. Therefore, in our view, the amendment should be resisted on the grounds both of its basic philosophy and of the mechanism which it proposes for giving effect to that philosophy.
      Mr. Beith: The Under-Secretary of State may have overlooked the source of this amendment or she would not have used certain words. It does not arise from any difference in basic philosophy about what should be the main features of the State educational system but from the more specific concern of how to deal with the problem of special aptitudes.
      The House has just rejected an amendment which would have dealt widely with the problem of special aptitudes. A great deal of the discussion went rather wider that the amendment itself. Indeed, some of us had reservations about that amendment, because we felt that it would greatly undermine the principles of the Bill. That is why we sought to pass an amendment in the House of Lords to give a far more specific right to deal with other kinds of special aptitudes, if we find in future years that there is a special need. It is with that in mind that we suggest this amendment and Amendment No. 7 which has the effect of requiring an affirmative order.
      The amendment provides for any future Secretary of State for Education, or the present Secretary of State if she is still in office, to specify by order, which would have the assent of the House, other areas for which special provision should be made in addition to the two to which the Government have already agreed to be necessary—music and dancing. We do not advance the amendment on the basis that there will be large numbers of special cases but we want some element of flexibility. We do not want to assume that the House knows today what all future special cases might be.
      We support the principle of comprehensive education and we want to see it applied. We have supported the Bill in
      318
      principle and we are at one with the Government in wishing to make only limited exceptions to that principle. The Government have agreed to two exceptions. We are as keen as they to distinguish special aptitudes which can be provided for only in a special school. Others can be catered for in a comprehensive school. We have no wish to create a large loophole through which a general denial of the comprehensive principle can be driven.
      We must recognise that there are aptitudes for which special provision must be made. Research and discussion in education will continue to take place. The Prime Minister sought to encourage it. In the course of that discussion we might arrive at the conclusion that there are one or two other fields for which special provision should be made. Research in the problems of dyslexia, for instance, may show that it must be catered for in a special way. I do not want to prejudge that issue but I want to allow a future Secretary of State to bring forward special provisions under the Bill to deal with any situation. Education is a continuing and evolving process; it changes, as it should.
      Why should we have to alter the general framework and introduce a new Education Bill every time a change must be made? The House should pass legislation which will stand the test of time and establish a general framework which allows sufficient flexibility for change to be made. I lament a situation in which education must look forward only to constant enactment and repeal. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that the Bill will be repealed by a future Tory Government. The exercise of enactment and repeal of major education legislation will not lead to the successful growth of education. We need an element of flexibility which will allow the system to respond to change and new ideas.
      8.45 p.m.
      It is suggested that a future Secretary of State could use the provisions that we are advancing as a means to defeat the provision of the Bill as a whole by putting forward so many special subjects that general selectivity was reintroduced into education by the back door. If we have a Secretary of State prepared to do that, one who can defend it at Question

      319
      Time, he can do it through the parliamentary procedure. We shall have a government able to repeal the Bill and everything that goes with it. We shall be dealing with a Government with both the intention and the power to make major changes without the need to resort to any loophole or back-door method. If we are to suppose the existence of a Secretary of State who would use this means to turn his back on the whole of this legislation, we are supposing the existence of a Government who could sweep the whole thing away without resource to it.
      There is a need for flexibility to allow a sensible Secretary of State, faced with questioning in the House and the educational world generally on his or her use of the power, to respond to the products of new research and further discussion. If we find aptitudes other than music and ballet dancing which should be made the subject of special provision, which is not beyond the bounds of imagination, it should be possible to cater for them without the Government's having to come back to the House with major new legislation.
      Dr. Boyson: Although this was a Liberal amendment in the other place, it was supported by Conservative Back-Benchers there. We almost debated a similar amendment on Report in this House, but because of the guillotine it was not reached. Therefore, we have decided to support this amendment.
      I accept the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that if there is an intention to reverse the movement towards comprehensive schools there is no need for a loophole in the measure. We are already committed to repealing the compulsory clauses on gaining power. The amendment would allow more flexibility, which we should have to allow legislation to change with the mood of the time. The more flexibility we have, the more likely it is that the measure will do good instead of harm in the country.
      The choir schools were excepted in Committee. What is to stop the need for further exceptions arising? I am told by the National Council for Drama Teaching that there is a likelihood of a drama school being set up in London. To cater for that would need an amendment to the
      320
      Bill, whereas under the amendment we should need only a resolution or a statement by the Secretary of State.
      We welcome the Prime Minister's stress on scientific, technical and vocational education. The movement towards that may come. Who knows what Government will be in power by then? If we can imagine the nightmare of the present Government remaining in power, we can also imagine that they may not only want standards in schools but decide that there should be an emphasis on engineering or technical education. By accepting the amendment, the Government would save hours that would otherwise be spent upstairs in Committee. Languages and the other specialities, such as mathematics, that we discussed in the previous debate might also be involved. The Secretary of State should have power at any time to add special subjects, special courses, special groups of people without having to amend the Bill or pass a further Education Act.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I was aware that the amendment had been tabled in another place by a member of the party of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Liberal Party. I recognise that on this matter there is not the difference of basic philosophy between us as there is between us and other hon. Members.
      I would also say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in a spirit of true charity, that one must look at the effect of these amendments as well as their entirely honourable motives. I accept that the hon. Gentleman shares with us a good deal of philosophy about education. But one must consider the potential results of how the amendment can be used.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke at some length about the fact that he and his hon. Friends, and those in another place who had tabled the amendment, had no intention of allowing it to be used in the way that I have suggested. He said that what they wanted was to allow a few additions to be made in respect of specialisation as circumstances may develop in future. He said quite specifically "We do not intend to add large numbers of special cases". I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that although that might

      321
      not be the intention of his hon. Friends, or those in another place, the amendment as drafted would permit that process.
      The hon. Gentleman said he had no wish to create a large loophole but, with respect, he has created a very large loophole indeed. He said it could be decided in future, as a result of further research, whether there were other fields which needed special provision. However, he did not answer the question: although we may need special provision in other fields, do we necessarily need special schools in those fields? The hon. Gentleman gave dyslexia as an example. It is certainly possible to provide for children who are dyslexic to go to a school which does not need to be a separate school. In the case of children who are physically and mentally handicapped, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is at present a substantial argument in educational circles, and in this House, stating that more of these children should be educated in ordinary comprehensive schools and that they should receive special assistance to enable them to be maintained there.
      The hon. Gentleman also put forward an argument for changing the Bill in order to provide for such children. I would suggest that we would not need to change the Bill to cover that sort of special need which the hon. Gentleman foresees at some time in the future. It is something which could be dealt with within the existing framework of the Bill.
      Finally, he suggested that we could have a Government which wished to introduce so many orders as to weaken the principle of the Bill.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend not recoil in horror at some of the barbarisms put forward in respect of comprehensive education? What would a technical comprehensive school be about if children at the age of 11 were selected as hewers of wood and drawers of water? Do we not have here not a development of the comprehensive principle, but an attempt to return to the old 1870 situation of specialised education under which Conservative Members think they can select children at such an early stage?
      Miss Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It becomes more and more
      322
      apparent that there are many hon. Members of this House who claim to sympathise with the principle of comprehensive education without recalling what it actually means. How the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) can argue that there is such a thing as a "technical comprehensive school" is beyond me. Surely the whole point of comprehensive schools is that they not only admit a full range of children without selection but also offer them a full range of education.
      Dr. Boyson: There are very few comprehensive schools giving such a full range of education at the moment. It is a myth to suggest that there are. It seems to me possible to have a school with children of technical interests of all abilities. It would be interesting to discover whether a technical comprehensive school will be more successful than some of the comprehensive schools in the country at present.
      Miss Jackson: That demonstrates a classic misconception in the hon. Gentleman's mind. For one thing, he clearly assumes that those who are technically able are somehow different and specialised and that that side of their ability should be developed rather than the full range of their potential abilities.
      The hon. Gentleman also appears to assume that it is not so necessary to develop technical ability in the full range of children. That is precisely the kind of difficulty that we have got ourselves into. We have tried to divide our children in innumerable ways—by social class, academic ability and so on—and one of the ways is by technical interest for those who will or will not go into industry.
      The fact that we have sought to perpetuate those divisions is one of the many reasons that we have failed to be as successful as other countries, which have not been so foolish.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We had the best educational system in the world.
      Miss Jackson: If we had the best system in the world, I am somewhat at a loss to know what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about at Question Time after Question Time.

      323
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed argued that if we had a Government who sought to change the Bill as the amendment would permit them, by order or by a constant series of orders, that Government could repeal the Bill. That is a valid argument but it is not for us so to draft legislation as to make it unnecessary actually to repeal a Bill in order to vitiate its basic principle. The object of passing a Bill into law is to ensure that its philosophy and principle are carried into effect, not to introduce
      provisions to make it easy simply to by-pass the law and to make a nonsense of it from the beginning.
      Therefore, we regret that, on this amendment supported by the Liberal Party, if not perhaps on a later one, we are forced to ask the House to disagree with the Lords.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes, 291.

      Division No. 380.]

      AYES

      8.58 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Huckfield, Les

      Allaun, Frank

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Anderson, Donald

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Archer, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ashley, Jack

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hunter, Adam

      Ashton, Joe

      Dempsey, James

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Doig, Peter

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jannet, Greville

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dunn, James A.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bates, Alf

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Bean, R. E.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jenkins Hugh (Putney)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Eadie, Alex

      John, Brynmor

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Edge, Geoff

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Johnson, Waller (Derby S)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Boardman, H.

      English, Michael

      Judd, Frank

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Ennals, David

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Kelley, Richard

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Kilroy-Silk Robert

      Bradley, Tom

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Latham Arthur (Paddington)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Buchanan, Richard

      Flannery, Martin

      Lee John

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Campbell, Ian

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Cant, R. B.

      Ford, Ben

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Forrester, John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Carter, Ray

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Litterick, Tom

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Cartwright, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lovden Eddie

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Luard, Evan

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      George, Bruce

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Coleman, Donald

      Ginsburg, David

      McCartney, Hugh

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Golding, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Concannon, J. D.

      Gould, Bryan

      McElhone, Frank

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gourley, Harry

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Graham, Ted

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Corbett, Robin

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Cowans, Harry

      Grant, John (Islington) C

      McIntosh, John P

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cronin, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Magee, Bryan

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mahon, Simon

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hatton, Frank

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hooley, Frank

      Marquand, David

      Davidson, Arthur

      Horam, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Coole)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

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

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Meacher, Michael

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Mendelson, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Tierney, Sydney

      Mikardo, Ian

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tinn, James

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Tomlinson, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Torney, Tom

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Roper, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Molloy, William

      Rose, Paul B.

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Moonman, Eric

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Rowlands, Ted

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Ryman, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Walker Terry (Kingswood)

      Moyle, Roland

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ward, Michael

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Selby, Harry

      Watkins, David

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Watkinson, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Weetch, Ken

      Noble, Mike

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Weitzman, David

      Oakes, Gordon

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ogden, Eric

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      White, James (Pollock)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Orbach, Maurice

      Sillars, James

      Whitlock, William

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Silverman, Julius

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ovenden, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Small, William

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Padley, Walter

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Park, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Parker, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Parry, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Stoddart, David

      Woodall, Alec

      Perry, Ernest

      Stott, Roger

      Woof, Robert

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Strang, Gavin

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Prentice. Rt Hon Reg

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Prescott, John

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Swain, Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Radice, Giles

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Mr. Frank R. White.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fry, Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Alison, Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cockcroft, John

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Arnold, Tom

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Cope, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Cordle, John H.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Kenneth

      Cormack, Patrick

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Banks, Robert

      Corrie, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Beith, A. J.

      Costain, A. P.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)

      Critchley, Julian

      Gorst, John

      Benyon, W.

      Crouch, David

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Biffen, John

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Gray, Hamish

      Blaker, Peter

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Percy

      Body, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bottomley, Peter

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Grist, Ian

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Dunlop, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Durant, Tony

      Hall, Sir John

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Eden, fit Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Brittan, Leon

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hannam, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Emery, Peter

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hastings, Stephen

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hawkins, Paul

      Buck, Antony

      Farr, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Budgen, Nick

      Fell, Anthony

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Michael

      Burden, F. A.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Hicks, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hodgson, Robin

      Carson, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Holland, Philip

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Forman, Nigel

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Channon, Paul

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Hordern, Peter

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fox, Marcus

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      326

      327

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Moate, Roger

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Molyneaux, James

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Monro, Hector

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Shersby, Michael

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Silvester, Fred

      James, David

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Sims, Roger

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

      Morgan, Geraint

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Jessel, Toby

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Spence, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Neave, Airey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sproat, lain

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kilfedder, James

      Newton, Tony

      Stanley, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Normanton, Tom

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Nott, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Stokes, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Osborn, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Tapsell. Peter

      Knox, David

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Lamont, Norman

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Lane, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Tebbit Norman

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Pardoe, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Partie, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Penhaligon, David

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Percival, Ian

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Lloyd, Ian

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      van Straubenzee, W. R,

      Loveridge, John

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Luce, Richard

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      viggers, Peter

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Raison, Timothy

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wakenham, John

      McCusker, H.

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Walker, Rt Hon p Worcester)

      MacGregor, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Walker Smith, Rot Hon Sir Derek

      Macmillan. Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wall, Patrick

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Walters, Dennis

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Warren, Kenneth

      Madel, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wells, John

      Marten, Neil

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mates, Michael

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mather, Carol

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Maude, Angus

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Younger, Hon George

      Mawby, Ray

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Mr. Clement Freud and

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Mr. Cyril Smith.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Mills, Peter

      Scott, Nicholas

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end insert:
      "; or
      (c) the provision of education in any school where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are based partly on selection to ensure the most effective use of qualified teachers of mathematics".
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Amendment No. 4 is in some ways rather strange. It would enable a local education authority virtually to retain its selection procedure on the grounds that it was an effective use of mathematics teachers. I recognise that the amendment
      328
      contains some slight qualification of the word "partly" in terms of selection, but this does not affect the contention that this would allow an authority to retain selection procedures. Selection has rarely, if ever, been wholly on the basis of mathematical ability. Such considerations have been based on geographical area, age and sex, and these matters have already been discussed.
      Everybody agrees that mathematics is a vital part of the school curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed concern about standards of numeracy and about the shortage of people skilled in mathematical concepts at all levels of the economy. We recognise that there is a persistent shortage of such

      329
      teachers, and this has been the situation over a period of years. But we are anxious not to exaggerate the problem out of all recognition or out of correlation with the facts. Secondly we want to pursue the right measure to solve the problem rather than just any measures that happen to come to light.
      Not all in the area of mathematics teaching is gloom and despondency. The number of maths "A" level passes rose from 37,000 in 1964 to 47,000 in 1974—an increase of over a quarter in a period of 10 years.
      Secondly, and most importantly, we are seeking to take the correct measures to deal with this situation. For many years we have asked teacher training colleges to give priority to the admission of teachers who want to train to teach maths. We have continued the exemption from training of mathematics and science graduates who wish to teach in secondary schools. At present we are considering whether we can retrain teachers in this time of teacher surplus and can provide additional specialised teachers in maths among other subjects in which there are shortages.
      However, I doubt whether the course proposed in the amendment would assist us. We have always argued that comprehensive schools may specialise in certain areas, and that if such specialities occur, it is a sensible, useful and practical use of resources for a set of schools to co-operate with each other in such specialities. But co-operation in this way is quite a different matter from reinstituting selection. In so far as the amendment means what it says—namely, that we should be seeking to use mathematics teachers effectively—obviously we all support that view, but we question whether the amendment will have the desired effect.
      There is another matter that concerns me, apart from the general issue of the reintroduction of selection. The amendment implies that all that is needed is co-operation. But, as the Prime Minister has emphasised, we need skilled and trained people in mathematics at all levels. We do not simply need the brilliant child; we also need children with particular expertise, skills and interests in maths to have a good sound grounding in the subject and to be taught by
      330
      the best teachers. If the assumption is that we should concentrate on the few talented children, what would happen to the rest?
      This amendment falls into the same trap. If there are not many resources and if such resources as we have are difficult to supplement, what one does if one follows the sentiments of the amendment is to concentrate on the few and to cease to worry too much about the generality of pupils. This is a mistake that has been made in the past, and I am sorry to say that it appears that the Opposition seems determined to perpetuate that mistake from generation to generation.
      My Labour colleagues and I oppose that concept, as we always have, and on those grounds I ask the House to disagree with the amendment.
      9.15 p.m.
      Dr. Hampson: This evening we have seen an interesting development in Government tactics in dealing with the Opposition on education. They no longer insist that Conservatives oppose comprehensive education. At long last we have persuaded them to accept that we do not oppose the principle. They now spend their time questioning our motives and intentions and casting doubt on what we intend. They are always suggesting that we have ideas in mind that are the thin end of some privileged wedge. The Minister returned to that argument at the end of her contribution. At every stage of the Bill that is the one argument that they have put forward, and they have used it for getting rid of the amendment.
      If resources are limited, it may be right to concentrate them in certain areas. That is not because we believe in a certain privileged group that we want to push forward but because it is of importance for the generality and of significance for the generations to come. If we do not get the right skills in mathematics and if the people who have those skills do not enter the teacher training colleges, we shall not in turn get decent mathematics teachers in the schools to deal with the average child, the child from the sort of background about which the Secretary of State has spoken.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends accept full well that the deprived background, economically and culturally, of many

      331
      children detracts from their education prospects. However, the right hon. Lady must recognise that that background affects comprehensive schools in many of our cities, for example, just as much as it did the secondary modern schools. The comprehensive schools are just as lacking in challenge and in the abler range of courses as were the secondary modern schools.
      We cannot label something as comprehensive and assume that all is well. Indeed, what is this definition "comprehensive"? We need to challenge the Government on whether there is such a thing. They make the bland assumption, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, that there can be the whole ability range within a comprehensive school and that such a school will have the right range of courses to meet requirements. I question whether either of those qualities is present in schools in many areas of our cities. Where a neighbourhood comprehensive school genuinely has all social groups and all ability groups within it, does it in turn have the means of providing a wide range of courses for the children?
      The right hon. Lady has admitted herself that there are not enough trained mathematics teachers. There is the same shortage in a whole range of other subjects—for example, chemistry and physics.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much depends upon the catchment area? If we do not get the catchment areas right, what the hon. Gentleman says is correct. If a neighbourhood school's catchment area is concentrated in a slum area, the environment will be against the youngsters getting an opportunity. However, if the catchment areas are balanced, that problem can be overcome.
      Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman has underlined the point that I was making. I was saying that we should not assume, having moved into a so-called comprehensive system with 75 per cent. of children going to such schools, that the problems have disappeared about which we heard earlier from the right hon. Lady about the pre-comprehensive days, when pupils were separated into what have been regarded as sink schools. The fact is that they will not disappear.
      332
      Unfortunately, in the bulk of the system we have neighbourhood comprehensive schools that reflect the problem of their environment.
      I return to the point at which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) interrupted me. We know that resources are limited. We know that by 1980 the standing of the education service in the pecking order of Government spending will have fallen from what it was under the previous Conservative Government, ranking fourth in the order of 14 categories, to third from the bottom of 14. If that is the case, it will not be possible for all our schools to have the requisite number of skilled mathematicians or even those with a degree in maths. That will apply to languages and a whole range of other subjects. That is the point that was put so ably by the spokesman for the Liberal Party.
      Many Members of the Opposition have said that the schools de facto will probably have to specialise. Indeed, the Minister recognised that herself. In Committee the then Minister of State acknowledged that. It seems that the Government are in an illogical position when they recognise that specialisms will have to occur. The Minister said that cooperation between schools will have to occur, but Ministers deny the further logic that it is necessary in maths or in languages, but particularly maths, to test or assess, whatever word we use, the children who go into schools where specialisms exist.
      First, one needs to know how far into a subject like mathematics a child is. A school which has qualified staff in mathematics may well be in a good part of town. The school may have a good reputation and be looked up to by parents, a good many of whom will want to opt for it not because of its mathematics but for general reasons. It would be wrong to allow such a school to be put under such pressure of numbers when the key is mathematics. Therefore, one may have to select people for the provision for mathematics that the school is offering. But the Government will not accept the logic of that position. They deny all talk of selection at all stages in the secondary system.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: It is possible to argue that there may necessarily be

      333
      some specialisation in a subject such as computer science, for example, or in high level maths, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing that it does not matter if most of our children do not learn mathematics at all.
      Dr. Hampson: That is a distortion of the argument. We know that there is a problem with mathematics at two levels. The evidence is overwhelming. It is staggering that the Government are doing nothing about it. We have the example of Professor Bonnor, who resigned from the governing body of a London comprehensive school in disgust because, in many cases, the children were not having their maths right through their academic career but were opting out in the third or fourth year. The Mathematical Association has highlighted the problems for employers when taking on youngsters who do not have the basic maths and skills.
      Last year, the former Secretary of State for Education and Science launched a so-called strong attack on mathematical illiteracy. He said that to be innumerate was a great disadvantage to the sheer business of living. He is right. In Staffordshire, for example, it was found that children in the fourth year could not do simple multiplication. In a London comprehensive school, it was found that only eight children out of 240 could actually subtract simple decimal sums. There was the recent crisis enquiry in Liverpool.
      The fact is that we have a great crisis in mathematics in our schools, and it is time that the Government recognised it. Yet the Government dismiss our repeated demands for a Bullock-type inquiry into this matter—one of the questions being, for example, how one gets the best motivation of children in mathematical subjects. But the Government repeatedly pooh-pooh the whole notion of crisis. The Secretary of State says that inquiries take a long time, but if her predecessor had acted last year, the inquiry would have been half finished by now. We might even have had an interim report. Let us accept that there is this crisis at basic level.
      The Under-Secretary of State is wrong to detract from what the amendment is about. She claims that we are concerned only with the brilliant child. Not at all.
      334
      When Lord Eccles introduced the amendment in another place, it was phrased in terms whereby local authorities would have to have provision for basic skills in maths. The hon. Lady is right to say that, apart from that level of the problem, there is the problem of the child with mathematical talent. But if we are not careful, the neighbourhood comprehensive school will not find the challenging intellectual environment in which these potential skills are brought on.
      The same applies to other subjects. Indeed, some subjects are disappearing out of some secondary schools because there is not the challenging environment to draw on students to keep up the numbers in the sixth forms, and because we have not the specialised teachers who can make use of these subjects in the schools.
      It was shown by a study, from Reading, of 100 people in teacher training colleges, who are intended to become primary school teachers, that less than half of them could turn 7/16ths into a decimal. These were people in training colleges.
      Frankly, it is a sham on the part of the Minister and naive of her to point to the statistics and to say that the numbers of those doing A-level mathematics are going up. The Minister ought to know that the number of people going into colleges of education with A-level mathematics has been falling off. It is an unprecedently low point, and the decline has been going on since 1971.
      As the study from Reading points out, we are getting into a teaching-learning cycle. There are not enough schools able to challenge people and to draw them on mathematically, therefore the training colleges are not getting people with adequate qualifications in mathematics.
      At one of my own colleges the lecturers say that the people who will be teaching mathematics can themselves barely reach CSE fourth grade. They do not have the real motive to learn or the necessary interest in mathematics, even if they have some qualifications. The cycle goes on, for when they come into schools as teachers they in turn are unable to stimulate and motivate their own pupils.
      Our resources in mathematics, therefore, are precious, and there is a limit now on the number of mathematics teachers. This has been recognised by the Secretary of State, in that it is not

      335
      necessary now for graduates with mathematics to be trained as teachers. They can go straight from universities into schools as teachers of mathematics.
      Where we have quality in the teachers, let us concentrate on those particular schools and try to save something out of this difficult situation, so that pupils who show potential in mathematics can be transferred to a school with a good mathematics department. That is the essence of it.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend agree that the Government, in proceeding in this way, are acting totally contrary to the Prime Minister's speech—[Interruption.]—at Oxford—[Interruption.]—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. How many discussions or debates are going on in this Chamber? Mr. Winterton.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to ask my hon. Friend whether he will confirm that in his view the Government, in proceeding as they are, in fact, are acting totally contrary to the Prime Minister's message in his excellent speech at Oxford. Inevitably, there are not enough sufficiently qualified and motivated mathematics teachers to teach applied and advanced mathematics in every comprehensive school, and that is tantamount to saying that in fact in many comprehensive schools there will not be the proper quality of mathematics teaching. That is the whole point of the amendment.
      Dr. Hampson: If I may sum that up, the basic point is that innumerate teachers will produce innumerate pupils. As the Prime Minister quite rightly said,
      "there is concern about the standards of numeracy of school leavers. Is there not a case for a professional review of the mathematics needed by industry at different levels?"
      Nevertheless, the Government still turn down our request for an inquiry. The position is so serious now that 11 professors of mechanical engineering at the northern universities have shown the same sort of concern. They have said that there is a key relationship between the mathematics taken at school and the performance in engineering. In other words, if mathematics is not properly taught, there will not be much chance of attract-
      336
      ing people into engineering-based and technology-based courses.
      This is a matter of fundamental significance, as the professors point out in their memorandum, of which I believe the Secretary of State has a copy. They point out that the engineering departments have had to introduce remedial teaching for the increasing number of teachers who are not sufficiently well prepared in sixth form mathematics, and who lack skill in manipulation.
      In this situation, when we know that the schools will not have sufficient teachers of mathematics of the necessary standard, we must at least ensure that those pupils with any aptitude go to the schools where decent standards are available.
      The amendment, therefore, is only common sense. It is not asking all local authorities to set up special mathematics schools. It is not exclusive. It does not say that other subjects shall not be taught. It is seeking to use to the best advantage the few resources available in this very important area.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) protests too much. He must have a very weak case. When I spoke in an earlier debate, I remarked that the Opposition had retreated to a new prepared position. But all their positions are crumbling away.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) left the Chamber a short time ago. As he left, he made the wry comment "We are now going through exactly the same amendments that we dealt with during all those long weary hours in Committee". How right he was.
      As the head of a school, many years ago, I remember the days when the 11-plus was rampant. The desire in those days was to specialise at the age of 5. A teacher would look at a child in the infants' section of a school, and say "Grammar material". The 11-plus was ever-present. It gloomed over us all, children and teachers alike.
      Opposition Members know how they had their crammers in which education as we know it did not go on. In them, they specialised only in the 11-plus which consisted of an intelligence test, arithmetic and a test in English. That was all that

      337
      was crammed into their pupils. General education was excluded simply to provide pupils with an advantage in the forthcoming 11-plus—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was wrong with that?"] In asking me that, Opposition Members show that they have not changed. In 1976, when we debate comprehensive education, they ask what is wrong with that, thereby betraying their belief in specialisation.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
      Mr. Flannery: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to develop my theme. I am warming to the theme.
      Opposition Members know little or nothing about comprehensive education. When I made a similar claim just now, one of them replied that he had gone to a comprehensive school at the age of 11. Following that, I took the trouble to look at his autobiography. I discovered that he was born in 1944. I do not know where the comprehensive school was in 1955. But he went to Westminster School. If that is comprehensive, the hon. Gentleman has a lesson or two to teach me.
      It would be interesting if there were more products of comprehensive education on the Opposition Benches. In that way, the Opposition would know what ordinary children go through when they are learning. By ordinary children, I mean those who have not had access to private schools, which Opposition Members enjoyed because of the length of their parents' purses all that time ago.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about cramming. Does he believe that children going from primary to secondary school should be able to read and write and to deal properly with arithmetic?
      Mr. Flannery: Of course, I do. I think that that is what is happening.
      A campaign has been unleashed by the Conservative Party and by the media which its members own. This is the reality. Since the Black Papers came out, there has been unleashed by the Conservative Party a full-scale attempt to overthrow comprehensive education, and it is failing despite all its newspapers. That assault, begun by the Black Papers, is culminating in this attack on the Bill
      338
      tonight. But, like previous attacks, it is being defeated. No amount of exaggeration about the problems that we face in education can destroy the fact that each day many thousands of people come to believe that the comprehensive system is a compassionate and good form of education—much better than anything we have had in the past. No matter what the Conservatives say, the results are profoundly better than they have ever been.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that often when comprehensive education is introduced there is a great campaign against it but, in fact, after it has become a reality in the area concerned, the people inevitably accept it and welcome the change? There is never any call for a return to the selective system.
      Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is correct, and Conservatives know it. Time and time again in Committee the Conservatives have pretended to embrace comprehensive education and have paid tribute to it. They have done this repeatedly, despite the type of speech by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He nakedly unleashed an attack which was in headlong collision with comprehensive education. Immediately, on his Front Bench there were some rustlings in order to prove that they really believe in it. However, every amendment they moved in Committee and every amendment introduced by their friends in another place was a direct attack on comprehensive education.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am deeply indebted to the hon. Member for giving way. Earlier he referred to buying education by the length of purses. The common experience of many hon. Members is that when comprehensive education is in operation, wealthy parents will buy their way into good schools in an area, as has been the case for more than 20 years in the United States. It is beginning to happen in this country as well. It is those with short purses who will suffer.
      Mr. Flannery: That is a real problem, and in time we shall get around to it.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one thing that Opposition Members will be unlikely to

      339
      be able to purchase in the private sector, however long their purses may be, is a specialist school in mathematics from the age of 11?
      Mr. Flannery: Yes, and Conservatives know that that is correct. These amendments, which call for specialisation from 11, are another loophole which they are attempting to create in the system. This amendment, like the previous one, will fail, and very soon we shall all troop into the Lobby to help that process along.
      Mr. Cormack: When listening to the endearing eccentricities of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) I always think that our loss is the children's gain. He talks the most splendid load of rubbish that we ever hear in this Chamber.
      I am astonished that the Minister, who brings grace, charm, discernment and, I should hope, a little distinction to her job, should be seeking, with her colleagues, to deny children the advantage that most of them have. Most hon. Members on the Government Benches went to selective schools and had the benefit of a highly-geared education in particular subjects. Yet they now attempt to steamroller through something for which there is no popular support—the suppression of excellence in education.
      The Bill, the last throes of a pitiful Government, seeks to negate excellence in education. Labour Members talk about Socialism being the language of priorities. If it were, it would be seeking to give every child, irrespective of social background, the opportunity to have the very best education in every subject, whether it be dancing, music or mathematics.
      I cannot understand why this Government, who have made more mathematical mistakes in a shorter time than any other Government in history—one thinks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 8·4 per cent. inflation forecast—
      Mr. Heffer: He went to grammar school; that is the trouble.
      Mr. Cormack: I cannot understand this Government seeking to prevent the cultivation of a subject on which the future of our country depends.
      340
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) always makes a distinctive contribution to our proceedings. He is widely read and I am sure that he is highly numerate. I hope that he will take the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one side and teach him a few home truths. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has tried to do that. If he had succeeded, my party would now be the Government.
      It is astounding that the Government should be seeking to prevent a proper appreciation of mathematics. This country depends on our young people being given the best possible education and on their aptitudes and abilities being cultivated as much as possible.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Why, then, is the hon. Gentleman standing in the way of that?
      Mr. Cormack: This country does not depend on antipodean interjections from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr)—the poor man's Gough Whitlam; it depends on a proper recognition of the importance of our children.
      The House of Lords has looked at this shabby, shoddy, third-rate, disreputable Bill and tried to bring a little sense to it. It has taken this particularly important section and asked why, if the Government are prepared to recognise the necessity of encouraging aptitude in music and dancing, they should not encourage an aptitude for mathematics in the same way.
      For the Government to say that mathematics is of no consequence and that it must take second place to ballet, the flute, the Jew's harp and the rest is a positive disservice to our children. If I were conducting an orchestra, I could not have a better Fred Karno's army in the band than the hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side. The wind section is well represented and the second riddles are present. There is, however, a total absence of excellence and quality.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that we now come back to disagreeing or agreeing with the Lords.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Cormack: I am gently rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker, as every hon. Member

      341
      is from time to time, with your wit, wisdom, eloquence and knowledge of what has made this country great through its educational system. [Interruption.] The humming by the hon. Member for Felt-ham and Heston demonstrates that his knowledge of rhythm is second only to his knowledge of excellence in any other sphere.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Thank you.
      Mr. Kenneth Lomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have three children. May I ask how many children the hon. Member for Staffordshire. South-West (Mr. Cormack) has?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. However interested the hon. Gentleman may be, that is not a point of order.
      Mr. Cormack: It is a very good cue, Mr. Speaker. I have two children. I do not know how productive the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) has been in his career. Perhaps he has three or four children.
      Mr. Lomas: I said that I have three children.
      Mr. Cormack: I am concerned about the education that my children will have. I am concerned about their future. Labour Members need not think that all Opposition Members have been educated through the power of the purse, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough put it. Many of us are dependent upon the excellence of the State system. Many of us believe in the State system. Many of us wish our children to be educated within the State system.
      My two children are attending a State school. But, as they go from the primary to the secondary school, I am appalled when I think of the narrowness of the way in which specialisation will be divorced from their secondary education and the way in which special aptitudes may not be encouraged. I want my children, whether their special aptitudes or abilities lie in mathematics, English, or in languages, to be given a chance to flourish and to achieve their full potential so that they can make a proper contribution to the future of this country. My fear is that, in a comprehensive school,
      342
      they will not get that opportunity and that there will be a lowering to the lowest common denominator.
      I have taught in State schools and have seen what can be achieved. One does not need to pay vast sums of money to achieve a good standard of education. I do not approach any of these subjects from a narrow partisan point of view. Yet I grieve that the Labour Party, which has contributed greatly to our educational system and almost all of whose leaders have benefited from the State system, is now seeking, in a spurious pursuit of pseudo-equality, to deny to children of the future what its members have gained in the past. I consider this to be an almost treacherous action which should be totally deplored by this House.
      I believe that their Lordships are to be warmly congratulated on what they have done in trying to introduce an element of common sense, propriety and equality into the Bill. I believe that this amendment should stand. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have a true appreciation of proper priorities will support it.
      Mr. Gerry Fowler: I regret to say that for part of his career the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) pursued genuine equality by teaching in the only public school in my constituency—The Wrekin. I am glad that it is the only public school there. What the hon. Gentleman learned about a genuine pursuit of equality at that school escapes my comprehension.
      I am a great admirer of the wit, liberalism, compassion, charm and eloquence of the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). Indeed, I have infuriated the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on more than one occasion by boosting the claims of his rival. But I have never suggested that the hon. Member for Ripon had any claim to logic. Therefore, I was disturbed to hear him make such play with that word tonight. The whole basis of his argument was utterly spurious. The hon. Gentleman argued that too many of our children were innumerate because too many of our teachers were innumerate and that it was therefore essential that we accepted the amendment to concentrate teaching talents for mathematics upon those with high mathematical abilities.

      343
      The whole basis of the argument was that most teachers going into the colleges—and the hon. Gentleman produced so-called evidence for this proposition—have no higher-mathematics ability. He was not really arguing for selection on that basis at all, but he was arguing that those who show a high general ability or aptitude should be selected for special schools where they can experience a concentration of teaching talent including that specialising in mathematics.
      If he denies that, his use of teachers as an example gives him away. He accepts that there will not be a separation at the age of 18 of those entering teaching and those entering other forms of education. That we cannot separate the education of teachers from other forms of higher education is now widely accepted on a bipartisan basis. He was arguing that to ensure that we have more numerate teachers we must have general selection by general ability at the age of 11. He says that we must identify at 11 those who are likely to go on to higher education.
      I also represent a rural constituency. The hon. Member for Ripon talked at length about the problems of urban areas, how one can concentrate teaching talent in specific disciplines in particular schools and how one can select children at 11 in specific disciplines. How on earth does one do that in my constituency or in his? He knows it cannot be done. He has said that he did not mean selection at 11 but at 13. I do not care whether it is at 11 or 13. The basic difficulty remains. I agree that it is possible to identify in the course of teaching—not by an examination at any given age—those whose ability in a particular discipline is such that they must be married with the right teaching where possible. It is possible to have transfers between schools within a totally non-selective system. We do not cavil at that but we cavil totally at the theory that there should be general selection at 11 merely in order, as the hon. Member for Ripon said, to ensure that mathematics teaching talent is utilised to the full and to ensure that the 11-plus examination survives in another form despite the express will of the House.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are bitterly disappointed at the extraordinary negative attitude of the Under-Secretary of
      344
      State to this reasonable and important amendment. I do not often slip into cricketing metaphors, but for me a sobriquet Stonewall Jackson has been given another dimension.
      In taking this adamantine attitude to the Opposition's proposals, the hon. Lady is out of step with both her own Prime Minister and her own Secretary of State. In that important speech at Oxford on 18th October, the Prime Minister drew attention to the desperate crisis we are facing in mathematics. It is a crisis which is hitting industry because of a shortage not of skilled mathematicians but of ordinary technicians able to play a part in industry.
      It was the Secretary of State herself who said in that interview by The Guardian that doing almost anything was better than doing nothing. That is quite a different attitude from that displayed by the Under-Secretary, who said that it was most important to investigate everything to find out what the right action should be. She never specified what the correct measures were.
      The Government's attitude to the amendment sums up the whole weakness of their present stance in education. They are calling for a national debate on education which we on this side of the House have been conducting for three years. The Prime Minister is making suggestions which we made months and years ago. Twelve months ago I called for an inquiry into mathematics. What we need now is implementation of the Prime Minister's words, deeds to give effectiveness to sentiments with which we agree.
      In this minor but important amendment we have a concrete suggestion for putting right what has gone wrong with mathematics in our schools. We must see the amendment in the general context of Opposition policy, which is to seek the reintroduction of national standards of literacy and numeracy. That is vital. Within that context the amendment, which is modestly worded, makes very good sense. It says that arrangements should be made
      "for the admission of pupils … based partly on selection to ensure the most effective use of qualified teachers of mathematics".
      Those words were carefully chosen by my noble Friend Lord Eccles. The Under-Secretary interpreted them as

      345
      meaning that we were concerned only with gifted children. That is not so. We are concerned with gifted children, particularly in an area where there is only a comprehensive school of a not very high quality. What is important is that the gifted child should have an opportunity to develop elsewhere the talent that he or she has. We are also concerned about those who have fallen behind in mathematics because they have been inadequately taught. They should have remedial teaching. We are concerned with both groups of children, not one to the exclusion of the other.
      As my noble Friend stressed, the weakness in mathematics is a weakness in primary schools. We are suffering from an abandonment of the teaching of elementary mathematics in many primary schools, for the simple reason that there are not enough good mathematics teachers, or any mathematics teachers, to undertake that task. That cannot be put right overnight. The way to build up a supply of good teachers is by stressing the importance of O-levels and A-levels in the secondary schools to produce for the future the teachers of mathematics
      who can go into the primary schools and build mathematics education up again from the foundations.
      That is a reasonable contribution to the debate. We are saying that that is in the national interest, which I take it is what the Prime Minister was saying. We have a crisis in mathematics in our schools, and it is essential to put the matter right. It is essential to have a certain number of schools which specialise in mathematics. We are grateful that the Prime Minister has recognised the crisis, but he is not prepared to do anything about it. The Opposition have not only recognised the crisis but are prepared to suggest action by which it can be ended. We have put forward in the amendment a concrete solution. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. We are putting ideas into practice, and therefore we shall vote for the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 282.

      Division No. 381.]

      AYES

      [10.0 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      English, Michael

      Allaun, Frank

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ennals, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Coleman, Donald

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Archer, Peter

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Concannon, J. D.

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Ashley, Jack

      Conlan, Bernard

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Corbet, Robin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Cowans, Harry

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Flannery, Martin

      Bates, Alf

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bean, R. E.

      Cronin, John

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Beith, A. J.

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Ford, Ben

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Forrester, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

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

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dalyell, Tam

      Freeson, Reginald

      Boardman, H.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Freud, Clement

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      George, Bruce

      Bradley, Tom

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Deakins, Eric

      Ginsburg, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Golding, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Gould, Bryan

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Gourlay, Harry

      Buchan, Norman

      Dempsey, James

      Graham, Ted

      Buchanan, Richard

      Doig, Peter

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Grant John (Islington C)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Campbell, Ian

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dunn, James A.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Cant, R. B.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hamilton W. W. (Central Fife)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hardy Peter

      Carter, Ray

      Eadie, Alex

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Edge, Geoff

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Cartwright, John

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hatton, Frank

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Hooley, Frank

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Horam, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sillars, James

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mendelson, John

      Small, William

      Huckfield, Les

      Mikardo, Ian

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Snape, Peter

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hunter, Adam

      Molloy, William

      Stallard, A. W.

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Moonman, Eric

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stoddart, David

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stott, Roger

      Janner, Greville

      Moyle, Roland

      Strang, Gavin

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Newens, Stanley

      Swain, Thomas

      John, Brynmor

      Noble, Mike

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Judd, Frank

      Ovenden, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kelley, Richard

      Padley, Walter

      Tinn, James

      Kerr, Russell

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tomlinson, John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Pardoe, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Kinnock, Neil

      Park, George

      Torney, Tom

      Lambie, David

      Parker, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Parry, Robert

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lamond, James

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Penhaligon, David

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

      Lee, John

      Perry, Ernest

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Ward, Michael

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Prescott, John

      Watkins, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Watkinson, John

      Lipton, Marcus

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Weetch, Ken

      Litterick, Tom

      Radice. Giles

      Weitzman, David

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Loyden, Eddie

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Luard, Evan

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      White, James (Pollock)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Whitlock, William

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      McElhone, Frank

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      MacFarquhar. Roderick

      Rooker, J. W.

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      McGuire. Michael (Ince)

      Roper, John

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      MacKenzie. Gregor

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Rowlands. Ted

      Woodall, Alec

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ryman, John

      Woof, Robert

      Madden, Max

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Magee. Bryan

      Sedgemore,, Brian

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Maguire. Frank (Fermanagh)

      Selby, Harry

      Mahon, Simon

      Shaw. Arnold (Ilford South)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Mr, Joseph Harper and

      Marks, Kenneth

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Joseph Ashton.

      Marquand, David

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carson, John

      Alison, Michael

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Channon, Paul

      Arnold, Tom

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brittan, Leon

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Banks, Robert

      Brotherton. Michael

      Clegg, Walter

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cockcroft, John

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Benyon, W.

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cope, John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Cordle, John H.

      Biffen, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Cormack, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Costain, A. P.

      Blaker, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Body, Richard

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Critchley, Julian

      348

      349

      Crouch, David

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Raison, Timothy

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rathbone, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Dunlop, John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Durant, Tony

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Elliott, Sir William

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Emery, Peter

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lamont, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lane, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Farr, John

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fell, Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lawson, Nigel

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Lloyd. Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Loveridge, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fox, Marcus

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McCusker, H.

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fry, Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      MacGregor, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Sims, Roger

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McNair-Wilson. M. (Newbury)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Madel, David

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marshall. Michael (Arundel)

      Speed, Keith

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Marten, Neil

      Spence, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Males, Michael

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mather, Carol

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Angus

      Sproat, Iain

      Gorst, John

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanley, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mayhew. Patrick

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stokes, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mills, Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Hall, Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Molyneaux, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro. Hector

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon s)

      Hannam, John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Trotter, Neville

      Hastings. Stephen

      Morgan, Geraint

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Morris. Michael (Northampton S)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Viggere, Peter

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Wakeham, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hicks, Robert

      Neave, Airey

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Hodgson, Robin

      Neubert, Michael

      Wall, Patrick

      Holland, Philip

      Newton, Tony

      Walters, Dennis

      Hordern, Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Warren, Kenneth

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Nott, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Oppenheim. Mrs Sally

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Osborn, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hurd, Douglas

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hutchison, Michael dark

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Younger, Hon George

      James, David

      Parkinson, Cecil

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

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

      Mr. John Corrie and

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Mr. James Lester.

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Speaker: It now being six hours after the commencement of the proceedings, it is my duty under the Order which the House made yesterday to deal with the remaining amendments. First, I must designate such of the remaining Lords amendments as appear to me to involve questions of Privilege. There is only one such amendment, namely Lords Amendment No. 11. I now call the Minister formally to move in succession any motions to disagree with the remaining Lords amendments.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 disagreed to.

    Clause 2

      SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS FOR GIVING EFFECT TO COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 2, line 6, after "specify" insert
      "not being less than 18 months,"
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order yesterday. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,—[Mr. Bates.]
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 294.

      Division No. 382.]

      AYES

      [10.16 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Dalyell, Tam

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Allaun, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Archer, Peter

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hatton, Frank

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ashley, Jack

      Davit, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hooley, Frank

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Horam, John

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dempsey, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Bates, Alf

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bean, R. E.

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dunn, James A.

      Hunter, Adam

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dunnett, Jack

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Boardman, H.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Eadie, Alex

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Edge, Geoff

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Bradley, Tom

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      English, Michael

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Ennals, David

      John, Brynmor

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Campbell, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      Judd, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Cant, R. B.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kelley, Richard

      Carmichael, Nell

      Flannery, Martin

      Kerr, Russell

      Carter, Ray

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Cartwright, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lambie, David

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Ford, Ben

      Lamborn, Harry

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Forrester, John

      Lamond, James

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Coleman, Donald

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lee, John

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Conlan, Bernard

      George, Bruce

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Corbett, Robin

      Ginsburg, David

      Lipton, Marcus

      Cowans, Harry

      Golding, John

      Litterick, Tom

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Gould, Bryan

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Graham, Ted

      Luard, Evan

      Cronin, John

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Cropland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Cryer, Bob

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cunningham Dr J. (Written)

      Hardy, Peter

      McElhone, Frank

      Harper, Joseph

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Pendry, Tom

      Swain, Thomas

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Perry, Ernest

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Prescott, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Madden, Max

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Magee, Bryan

      Radice, Giles

      Tierney, Sydney

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Tinn, James

      Mahon, Simon

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Tomlinson, John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Torney, Tom

      Marquand, David

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Walker Harold (Doncaster)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Rooter, J. W.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Mendelson, John

      Roper, John

      Ward, Michael

      Mikardo, Ian

      Rose, Paul B.

      Watkins, David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Watkinson, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Weetch, Ken

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Ryman. John

      Weitzman, David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wellbeloved, James

      Molloy, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Moonman, Eric

      Selby, Harry

      White, James (Pollock)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Whitlock, William

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Moyle, Roland

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Mulley, Fit Hon Frederick

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Newens, Stanley

      Sillars, James

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Noble, Mike

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Ogden, Eric

      Small, William

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Orbach, Maurice

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Woof, Robert

      Ovenden, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Padley, Walter

      Stoddart, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stoll, Roger

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Park, George

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Parker, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Mr. Joseph Ashton.

      Parry, Robert

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Pavitt, Laurie

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Alison, Michael

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Forman, Nigel

      Arnold, Tom

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Clegg, Walter

      Fox, Marcus

      Awdry, Daniel

      Cockcroft, John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Freud, Clement

      Banks. Robert

      Cope, John

      Fry, Peter

      Beith, A. J.

      Cordle, John H.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Corrie, John

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Biffen, John

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Blaker, Peter

      Crouch, David

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Body, Richard

      Crowder, F. P.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Bottomley, Peter

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Gorst, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Brittan, Leon

      Dunlop, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Durant, Tony

      Grieve, Percy

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Grist, Ian

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Elliott, Sir William

      Grylls, Michael

      Buck, Antony

      Emery, Peter

      Hall, Sir John

      Budgen, Nick

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Burden, F. A.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Farr, John

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fell, Anthony

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Carson, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Hastings, Stephen

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Havers, Sir Michael

      354

      355

      Hawkins, Paul

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mawby, Ray

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Scott, Nicholas

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Mills, Peter

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Holland, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shersby, Michael

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Silvester, Fred

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Molyneaux, James

      Sims, Roger

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Monro, Hector

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Speed, Keith

      Hurd, Douglas

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Spence, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      James, David

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Sproat, Iain

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

      Mudd, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Jessel, Toby

      Neave, Airey

      Stanley, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Neubert, Michael

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Newton, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Jopling, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Stokes, John

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Nott, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Onslow, Cranley

      Tapsell, Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Osborn, John

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Kilfedder, James

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kimball, Marcus

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Knox, David

      Penhaligon, David

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Lamont, Norman

      Percival, Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R

      Lane, David

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Viggers, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wakenham, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Raison, Timothy

      Walker Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Wall, Patrick

      Loveridge, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Walters, Dennis

      Luce, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Warren, Kenneth

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wells, John

      McCusker, H.

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      MacGregor, John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Younger, Hon George

      Madel, David

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Marten, Neil

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Mates, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Mr. W. Benyon.

      Mather, Carol

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Maude, Angus

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 disagreed to.

    New Clause A

      PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES ABOUT LOCAL SCHOOLS
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 3, line 40, at end insert new Clause A—
      356
      "A. The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the passing of this Act and after consulting such persons as he shall deem to be representative of the interests of local education authorities, of parents and of governors, make regulations specifying the information which local education authorities shall publish about the schools in their area and the means by which and the time within which such information shall be made available to the parents of children to whom places at such schools may be allocated and to such other persons as he may direct."
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 281.

      Division No. 383.]

      AYES

      [10.27 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lambie, David

      Allaun, Frank

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Anderson, Donald

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lamond, James

      Archer, Peter

      English, Michael

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Ennals, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ashley, Jack

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lee, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bates, Alf

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Litterick, Tom

      Bean, R. E.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Beith, A. J.

      Flannery, Martin

      Loyden, Eddie

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Luard, Evan

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Ford, Ben

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Boardman, H.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

      McElhone, Frank

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Freeson, Reginald

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Freud, Clement

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Bradley, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ginsburg, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Buchan, Norman

      Golding, John

      Madden, Max

      Buchanan, Richard

      Gould, Bryan

      Magee, Bryan

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Graham, Ted

      Mahon. Simon

      Campbell, Ian

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cant, R. B.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marquand, David

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Carter, Ray

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cartwright, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mendelson, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Coleman, Donald

      Hatton, Frank

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hodgson, Robin

      Molloy, William

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hooley, Frank

      Moonman, Eric

      Corbett, Robin

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cowans, Harry

      Horam, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Moyle, Roland

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Cronin, John

      Huckfield, Les

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Newens, Stanley

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Noble, Mike

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ogden, Eric

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jackson, colin (Brighouse)

      ovenden, John

      Davies Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Janner, Greville

      Padley, Walter

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Palmer, Arthur

      Oavis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pardoe, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Park, George

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      John, Brynmor

      Parker, John

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Parry, Robert

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Dempsey, James

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pendry, Tom

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Penhaligon, David

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones Barrey (East Flint)

      Perry, Ernest

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jones Barry ( Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Judd, Frank

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Dunn, James A.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prescott, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Eadie, Alex

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Radice, Giles

      Edge, Geoff

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ward, Michael

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Watkinson, John

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Weetch, Ken

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Stoddart, David

      Weitzman, David

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Stott, Roger

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rooker, J. W.

      Strang, Gavin

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Roper, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      While, James (Pollock)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Swain, Thomas

      Whitlock, William

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Ryman, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Selby, Harry

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tinn, James

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tomlinson, John

      Woodall, Alec

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Tomney, Frank

      Woof, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tomey, Tom

      Wrigglesworth. Ian

      Sillars, James

      Urwin, T. W.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Silverman, Julius

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Small, William

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

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

      Mr. Joseph Ashton.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Alison, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Heseltine, Michael

      Arnold, Tom

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hicks, Robert

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Dunlop, John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Durant, Tony

      Holland, Philip

      Baker, Kenneth

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hordern, Peter

      Banks, Robert

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hodgson, Robin

      Benyon, W.

      Emery, Peter

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Biffen, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Hurd, Douglas

      Body, Richard

      Farr, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fell, Anthony

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      James, David

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

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

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Jessel, Toby

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Brittan, Leon

      Forman, Nigel

      Jopling, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Gaibraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Kilfedder, James

      Buck, Antony

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Budgen, Nick

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Burden, F. A.

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Carlisle, Mark

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Carson, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Knox, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Goodhew, Victor

      Lamont, Norman

      Channon, Paul

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lane, David

      Churchill. W. S.

      Gorst, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Clegg, Walter

      Gray, Hamish

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Cockcroft, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Lloyd, Ian

      Cope, John

      Grist, Ian

      Loveridge, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Grylls, Michael

      Luce, Richard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hall, Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Corrie, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      McCrindle. Robert

      Costain, A. P.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McCusker, H.

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Macfarlane, Nell

      Critehley, Julian

      Hannam, John

      MacGregor, John

      Crouch, David

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Hastings, Stephen

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      360

      361

      Madel, David

      Percival, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, lain

      Marten, Neil

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Males, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stanley, John

      Mather, Carol

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Maude, Angus

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Raison, Timothy

      Stokes, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Tapseli, Peter

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mills, Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Moate, Roger

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Molyneaux, James

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Monro, Hector

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

      Vaughan Dr Gerard

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Viggers Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Wakenham, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Walker Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Mudd, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wall, Patrick

      Neave, Airey

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Walters, Dennis

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Neubert, Michael

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Newton, Tony

      Shelton William (Streatham)

      Wells, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Shepherd, Colin

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Nott, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Onslow, Cranley

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton Nicholas

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Silvester, Fred

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Osborn, John

      Sims, Roger

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Younger, Hon George

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Spence, John

      Mr. Jim Lester and

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Mr. Anthony Berry.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    New Clause B

      COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 3, line 40, at end insert new Clause B:
      "B.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry into the operation and results of secondary schools having particular regard to—

      (a) the experience so far gained of the effect of the size of schools upon the quality of education, the turnover of staff and the discipline within them; and

      (b) the effect of classes of mixed ability on the quality of education.
      (2) The said Committee of Inquiry shall lay the report of its findings before both Houses of Parliament within two years of the passing of this Act."
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to the Order yesterday, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Bates.]
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 294.

      Division No. 384.]

      AYES

      [10.40 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Allaun, Rank

      Bradley, Tom

      Concannon, J. D.

      Anderson, Donald

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Conlan, Bernard

      Archer, Peter

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashley, Jack

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Cowans, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Atkinson, Norman

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Cronin, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Campbell, Ian

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Cryer, Gob

      Bates, All

      Cant, R. B.

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Sean, R. E.

      Carmichael, Nell

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Carter, Ray

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cartwright, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Boardman, H.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cohen, Stanley

      Deakins, Eric

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Kelley, Richard

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Dempsey, James

      Kerr, Russell

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Doig, Peter

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dunn, James A.

      Lamond, James

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Leadbitter Ted

      Rooter, J. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      Lee, John

      Roper, John

      Edge, Geoff

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ryman, John

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sandelson, Neville

      Ennals, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Evans Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Selby, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Luard, Evan

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans John (Newton)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sillars, James

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Silverman, Julius

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McElhone, Frank

      Flannery, Martin

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Fletcher L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fletcher Ted (Darlington)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Small, William

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Snape Peter

      Ford, Ben

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Forrester, John Fowler

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stallard, A. W.

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

      Madden, Max

      Stewart Rt Hon M (Fulham)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Magee, Bryan

      Stott, Roger

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Strang, Gavin

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mahon, Simon

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      George, Bruce Gilbert, Dr John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W. Marks, Kenneth

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Swain Thomas

      Ginsburg, David

      Marquand, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Golding, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Gould, Bryan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Graham, Ted

      Meacher, Michael

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thorne Stan (Preston South)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mendelson, John

      Tierney, Sydney

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tinn, James

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Tomlinson John

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hardy, Peter

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Torney, Tom

      Harper, Joseph

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Molloy, William

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Moonman, Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Hatton, Frank

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Healey Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Moyle, Roland

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      ward, Michael Watkins, David

      Hooley, Frank

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Watkinson, John

      Horam, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Weetch, Ken

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

      Noble, Mike

      Weitzman, David

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Wellbeloved, James

      Huckfield, Les

      Ogden, Eric

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      White, James (Pollock)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Whitlock, William

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ovenden, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Padley, Walter

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Park, George

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Janner, Greville

      Parker, John

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parry, Robert

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pendry, Tom

      Woodall, Alec

      John, Brynmor

      Perry, Ernest

      Woof, Robert

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Mr. Thomas Cox and

      Judd, Frank

      Radice, Giles

      Mr. David Stoddart

      364

      365

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gaibraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Alison, Michael

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Arnold, Tom

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marten, Neil

      Awdry, Daniel

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mather, Carol

      Banks, Robert

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Beith, A. J.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Benyon, W.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Grieve, Percy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Body, Richard

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J

      Moate, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hall, Sir John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Brotherton, Michael

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bryan Sir Paul

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mudd, David

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Budgen, Nick

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heseltine, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Burden F. A.

      Hicks, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Normanton, Tom

      Hodgson, Robin

      Nott, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holland, Philip

      Onslow, Cranley

      Parson John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hordern, Peter

      Osborn, John

      Channon, Paul

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

      Clark Alan (Plymouth Sutton)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cockcroft, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Penhaligon, David

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Cope, John

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Cordle, John n.

      James, David

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Price David (Eastleigh)

      Corrie, John

      Jessel Toby

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Raison, Timothy

      Critchley, Julian

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Crouch, David

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dunlop, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Durant, Tony

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knox, David

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lamont, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Emery, Peter

      Lane, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Shepherd. Colin

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Silvester, Fred

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Fox, Marcus

      McCusker, H.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Freud, Clement

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      366

      367

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wall, Patrick

      Speed, Keith

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Spence, John

      Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Wells, John

      Sproat, lain

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Trotter, Neville

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanley, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      van Straubenzee, W. R

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing Acton)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Viggers, Peter

      Younger, Hon George

      Stokes, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wakenham, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 4

      DUTY TO IMPLEMENT APPROVED PRO POSALS AS TO MAINTENANCE OR CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF SCHOOL
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 4, line 5, at end insert—
      "'provided that the necessary resources for building and equipment have been made
      available to give full effect to the Secretary of State's approval of the proposals.'"
      Motion made, and Question put forth-with pursuant to the Order yesterday, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Bates.]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 294.

      Division No. 385.]

      AYES

      10.51 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Cronin, John

      Golding, John

      Allaun, Frank

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Gould, Bryan

      Anderson, Donald

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Archer, Peter

      Cryer, Bob

      Graham, Ted

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Ashley, Jack

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Grocott, Bruce

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hardy, Peter

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Harper, Joseph

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bates, Alf

      Deakins, Eric

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Bean, R. E.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hatton, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dempsey, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Doig, Peter

      Hooley, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dormand, J. D.

      Horam, John

      Boardman, H.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Dunn, James A.

      Huckfield, Les

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Bradley, Tom

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Eadie, Alex

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Edge, Geoff

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Hunter, Adam

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Buchanan, Richard

      English, Michael

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Ennals, David

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell, Ian

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Canavan, Dennis

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Cant, R. B.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      John, Brynmor

      Carter, Ray

      Faulds, Andrew

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Cartwright, John

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Flannery, Martin

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Judd, Frank

      Cohen, Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Coleman, Donald

      Ford, Ben

      Kelley, Richard

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Forrester, John

      Kerr, Russell

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Kinnock, Neil

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lambie, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cowans, Harry

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lamond, James

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      George, Bruce

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ginsburg, David

      Lee, John

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Orbach, Maurice

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ovenden, John

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Litterick, Tom

      Padley, Walter

      Swain, Thomas

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Palmer, Arthur

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Park, George

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Luard, Evan

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Parry, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Mabon, Or J. Dickson

      Pendry, Tom

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Perry, Ernest

      Tierney, Sydney

      McDonald, Or Oonagh

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Tinn, James

      McElhone, Frank

      Prentice, Rt Hon Rag

      Tomlinson, John

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Prescott, John

      Tomney, Frank

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Torney, Tom

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Radice, Giles

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Walker. Harold (Doncaster)

      Madden, Max

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Magee, Bryan

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Ward, Michael

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Watkins, David

      Mahon, Simon

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Watkinson, John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Weetch, Ken

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Weitzman, David

      Marquand, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Marshall Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roper, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rose, Paul B.

      White, James (Pollock)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Meacher, Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      Whitlock, William

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Ryman, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mendelson, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Millan, Rt Hon

      Selby, Harry

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Miller, Mrs Mille (Ilford N)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Molloy, William

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Woodall, Alec

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Sillars, James

      Woof Robert

      Moyle, Roland

      Silverman, Julius

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Small, William

      Newens, Stanley

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Noble, Mike

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Peter Snape and

      Oakes, Gordon

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. A. W. Stallard

      Ogden, Eric

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Emery, Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eyre, Reginald

      Alison, Michael

      Carson, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Arnold, Tom

      Channon, Paul

      Farr, John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fell, Anthony

      Awdry, Daniel

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Baker, Kenneth

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Banks, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Clegg, Walter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Cockcroft, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Forman, Nigel

      Benyon, W.

      Cope, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Bitten, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Fox, Marcus

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Blaker, Peter

      Corrie, John

      Freud, Clement

      Body, Richard

      Costain, A. P.

      Fry, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Bottomley, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Crouch, David

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brittan, Leon

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Goodhart, Philip

      Brotherton, Michael

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Goodhew, Victor

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Dunlop, John

      Gorst, John

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Durant, Tony

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Buck, Antony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Budgen, Nick

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gray, Hamish

      Burden, F. A.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Grieve, Percy

      370

      371

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Grist, Ian

      McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Grylls, Michael

      Madel, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Hall, Sir John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Marten, Neil

      Salisbury, Tim

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Males, Michael

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mather, Carol

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Maude, Angus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mawby, Ray

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Shepherd, Colin

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shersby, Michael

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Silvester, Fred

      Heseltine, Michael

      Mills, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Hicks, Robert

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Moate, Roger

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Holland, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Monro, Hector

      Speed, Keith

      Hordern, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Spence, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Sproat, lain

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Stanley, John

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Mudd, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Neave, Airey

      Stokes, John

      James, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

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

      Neubert, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Newton, Tony

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Nott, John

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Tebbit, Norman

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Salty

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Jopling, Michael

      Osborn, John

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Trotter, Neville

      Kilfedder, James

      Pardoe, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Kimball, Marcus

      Parkinson, Cecil

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Penhaligon, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wakenham, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Knox, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walker. Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Lamont, Norman

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Lane, David

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Wall, Patrick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Raison, Timothy

      Walters, Dennis

      Latham, Michael (Mellon)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Weatherill Bernard

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wells, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Lloyd, Ian

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Loveridge, John

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Luce, Richard

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Younger, Hon George

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      McCusker, H.

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Macfarlane, Nell

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      MacGregor, John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Mr. Anthony Berry

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 disagreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 agreed to.
      Motion made,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill:
      That Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Miss Margaret Jackson, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. Frank R. White and Mrs. Shirley Williams be members of the Committee:
      That Three be the quorum.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
      Mr. John Peyton: I give notice of my intention to move, as an amendment to the motion, that the name of Mr. Alan Beith be added to the list of names.
      Mr. Speaker: The proceedings upon this motion are not among those provided for under the Order to which the House agreed yesterday. I have no power to put the Question forthwith, nor can the business be proceeded with after 10 o'clock if opposed. I have to rule that what the right hon. Member has suggested constitutes opposition, and we cannot therefore debate the matter now.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (GENERAL SYNOD) MEASURES
  Resolved,
  That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Terry Walker.]

PETITIONS

  Wessex Water Board (Sewerage Scheme)
  Mr. Evelyn King: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition signed by 5,000 persons, all coming from the Island and Royal Manor of Portland. The Petitioners have asked that the Wessex Water Board withdraw the sewerage scheme to dispose untreated effluent from Weymouth and District into Chesil Bay. Whilst they recognise the need for a new sewerage lay-out for the area they object to the proposed point of disposal and request the Board to:
  "Investigate and install modern and progressive methods of disposal to avoid pollution of the sea by untreated sewage, detergents and other chemicals."
  and to
  "Consider provision of an inland sewage farm, or suitable method of sewage recovery, rather than sewage disposal."
  The Petitioners believe that
  "mass dumping of detergents … into the sea could deprive local fishermen of their livelihood, and that expensive tunnelling under the Chesil Bank and subsequent costly main-
  374
  tenance in the notoriously 'Rough Weather Bay' could be prohibitive."
  The Petitioners pray that
  "your Honourable House will do all in its power to ensure that the Wessex Water Board act as your Petitioners wish."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Young Persons (Employment)
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I beg leave to present a humble petition which members of the "Out" campaign have delivered to me and to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). It concerns the short-term nature of the present measures to help young people at a time of heavy unemployment. The 6,000 petitioners seek evidence of long-term planning and the alleviation of the problem, which affects their whole future.
  To lie upon the Table.

  High Court Attendances (Officers of the House)
  Sir David Renton: I beg to present a petition from George Leigh Sturgess, acting on behalf of the Anglian Water Authority. As I shall seek to move a motion arising from the petition, I ask for it to be read.
  The Clerk of the House The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:
  To The Honourable The Commons of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
  The Humble Petition of George Leigh Sturgess of Diploma House, Huntingdon, in the County of Cambridge, Solicitor, on behalf of the Anglian Water Authority of that address the Defendants in an action in the Chancery Division Group High Court of Justice 1974 C. No 9445 at the suit of Sir John Ernest Michael Conant, Baronet, which said action may be heard in the Michaelmas Sittings this year
  Sheweth as follows:—
  First—That the Plaintiff claims the sum of £7,707·83 by way of interest on the purchase money paid to him in respect of the purchase by the Defendants of freehold properties in the Parish of Hambleton in the County of Leicester for the construction of Empingham Reservoir in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers conferred on the Defendants, as successors to the Welland and Nene River Authority, by the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Act 1970.
  Second—That during the course of the consideration of the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Bill by a Select Committee of

  375
  Your Honourable House reference was made to the way in which the Promoters, the Welland and Nene River Authority, would seek to mitigate the hardship which might be suffered by those whose land the Promoters were seeking to acquire by the exercise of the compulsory powers contained in the said Bill.
  Third—That reference is desired to be made during the course of the action to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of Your Honourable House which considered the Welland and Nene (Empingham Reservoir) and Mid-Northamptonshire Water Bill on

  Tuesday 29th April 1969

  Wednesday 30th April 1969

  Thursday 1st May 1969

  Tuesday 6th May 1969

  Wednesday 7th May 1969

  Thursday 8th May 1969

  Tuesday 13th May 1969

  Wednesday 14th May 1969

  Thursday 15th May 1969

  Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave for the said references to be made, and to the Proper Officers of the House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Minutes of Evidence and formally to prove the same before the Court according to their competence.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  Ordered,
  That leave be given to the proper Officers of this House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Minutes of Evidence; and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Minutes.—[Sir David Renton.]

VANDALISM (SCOTLAND)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
11.12 p.m.
Mr. J. M. Craigen: During the Summer Recess the Government initiated a campaign against vandalism in Scotland. If the campaign is to earn the kind of public support that will be necessary to combat this serious social problem it will have to be more than a mere campaign of posters and television commercials.
The Home Office report on Protection against Vandalism, which was published at the end of last year, said that
"The cost of vandalism to the community is far greater than is generally suspected."
Most of us do not need statistics to tell us how much is being lost to the public purse as a result of damage to community property.
376
When the Scottish Office was launching the campaign I think the figure of £12 million was mentioned. Within the past day or so Strathclyde Regional Council has talked of about £8 million worth of damage to community property within the region during the year.
These are times when money is short. In a way we could have a bonus to public expenditure if we could contain the amount of money lost to the ratepayers and taxpayers by reducing the incidence of vandalism. I need hardly tell the Minister how intolerable the lives of some people living in housing estates and other urban areas have become as a result of the activities of many of these vandals and hooligans, nor of the fear felt by many older people who are now afraid to go out and about during the evenings, or of the harassment which many small shopkeepers experience. I am sure that the Minister recognises the disillusionment felt by many people in public service, such as local authority staff working in parks departments or building departments, as well as janitors and headmasters. Even our hospitals do not seem to be immune from the activities of the vandals.
We know only too well that our public transport services are harassed by their activities. We know of the problems facing train drivers and other railway personnel, as well as the difficulties facing bus drivers in the course of their duty. Sociologists can argue until the cows come home about the causes of vandalism, but the fact remains that the public at large has to bear the brunt of the activities of the vandals.
Family life has taken a considerable knock in the last decade or so, and many people feel that self-discipline and, perhaps more important, respect for other people is no longer evident in our society. It is clearly necessary for parents to take a far greater share of responsibility and not simply to shrug the problems on to teachers and policemen. In his capacity as Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has taken what I regard as an important initiative in calling together Church leaders in Scotland to see whether church congregations can play a community role in tackling some of the social problems. He will have already

377
received a letter from me saying that I am expecting some co-operation with regard to a certain local initiative.
I would, however, ask the Minister what the Scottish Social Work Services Group does. Some cynics have the impression that it issues circulars and that its people are busy attending conferences and giving various kinds of counsel. But at the end of the day we have no money to give the various bodies which are trying to do something, particularly voluntary bodies.
As the Minister knows, new problems are arising, such as glue sniffing, which is becoming a serious problem throughout the country and not simply in parts of Scotland.
My hon. Friend will recognise how important it is to have the co-operation of the police. In a reply which he sent me some months ago about this problem I felt he was placing too much emphasis on the idea of health education. This is something which will have to involve parents. As I think the Minister knows, I am trying to get something done in my own area with regard to the establishment of a local clinic which would give advice and assistance to young people who have become addicted.
The Home Office report felt there should be a concentration on strengthening family life in the country. It also, and significantly, called for greater police surveillance. In the negotiations which have been going on with local authorities over the rate support grant I hope that we shall not find police manpower in any way reduced. There is an even greater need for more policemen on the beat, to establish a community presence.
Another major point in the work done by the Home Office is the recognition that substantial penalties will be required against detected offenders and/or their parents. Our laws will have to recognise that the punishment should fit the crime much more.
Our police forces have particular problems in dealing with young persons in the 10 to 16 age group, who in some areas account for 50 per cent, of cases dealt with by the police. The most worrying feature is that those young people are our citizens of tomorrow. One wonders what society will be like 10 years from
378
now if we do not look afresh at the treatment of young offenders.
At the end of the sixties there were high hopes for the development of the children's panels, with emphasis on treatment rather than punishment, but public confidence in their operation is waning. The police have never been convinced of their effectiveness. Many culprits regard the panels as a bit of a joke. That may be unfair to the work which lay panel members are doing in Scotland. One must appreciate the amount of work which many of those people do. I should be interested to know whether there is a sufficient spread of social background among those who serve on the panels; the Minister may have some figures.
The most alarming question is: do we have enough support services? With the present constraints on local authority expenditure, local authorities may be obliged to break the law simply because they do not have the resources actually to implement the laws laid down by Parliament. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland recently suggesting that the time had come to review the system of treatment of juvenile offenders, and to give it teeth by introducing a greater element of reform and restitution.
There is a kind of trench warfare among the professionals on the question whether the List D schools should come under the educationists or the social workers. I do not think that the majority of people are all that worried about this demarcation. What they are concerned with is the success rate, or lack of it, of these schools compared to the system which they superseded. There is a growing backlog in the preparation of background reports and delays in cases coming before the courts, with young people sometimes going home because no residential care is available. Some of us regret the passing of the probation service from Scotland—something which was retained in England, albeit for career reasons among the probation workers.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us how soon the Pack Committee on Truancy and Indiscipline in Schools is likely to report. There is growing feeling about the number of young people who are walking about during the day when they should be at school. That is almost an argument for

379
bringing back the old school attendance service.
I recognise only too well that there is no simple solution to combating what has become a serious and complex social problem. There is no doubt in my mind that one necessity will be a greater community of identity within some of our cities, especially some of our housing schemes. One of the greatest problems is the aimlessness of society. There is a need to involve more young people in shaping their own destinies, and, equally, to recognise that there are a great many young people who are making a positive contribution to society
The problem is that it is often the un organised and the "unclubbable"—those who cannot involve themselves in existing organisations—who create most of the difficulties for the communities in which they live. The stage is almost being reached when if two or three people are gathered together we may well have a vandal among them. It is essential that the support the Government give to local authorities, and the legislation, be sufficient to encourage the public to play their part.
The Home Office report referred to the wide use of vandal-resistant and vandal-proof materials. We know only too well of the damage that is done to telephone kiosks, fencing and windows, and to public and private properties generally. It would be helpful if the Scottish Office could encourage local authorities to demolish derelict buildings more quickly. I do not know whether it is always a problem that lies with the demolishes or whether our present legal arrangements are obstacles to the earlier demolition of derelict properties.
I know that my hon. Friend has a special interest in the problem of football hooliganism. We are living in an age when we need to divert more of our youthful energies into positive pursuits. The most alarming aspect of football hooliganism is that, apart from the havoc that is often caused locally, such rowdyism chases away decent supporters from football matches.
Another problem that we have to face is the fact that vandalism is undoing some of the efforts of the recreation departments of local authorities. It is a great pity that in the latest circular that
380
went out to local authorities about local authority expenditure, once again leisure and recreation seem to be at the tail end of our priorities, at a time when we need a much more positive and imaginative approach.
I could speak for a considerable time on this problem, but in conclusion I say to my hon. Friend that vandalism has become one of our major social problems. I should like to see the campaign and which is currently being operated by the Scottish Office, which I welcome, become really effective.
Unless the Government are prepared to be sufficiently flexible and look afresh at the treatment of offenders, particularly juvenile offenders, who feel that the law cannot touch them, there will be a considerable demand for the re-introduction of corporal punishment. This would seem to be turning the clock back. But if the signs are not recognised now I suggest that the demand for restoration of corporal punishment will be irresistible.
11.31p.m.
The Undersecretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has raised an important subject tonight. I am sure that the House would want to note that so important is this debate considered that there are a fair number of Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench and that the Conservative Opposition is represented by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). It is a pity that the other political parties represented in Scotland should not have seen fit to attend this debate.
My hon. Friend began by saying that during the recent recess we introduced a campaign aimed at preventing vandalism. He said that the campaign would have to be more than just a poster campaign supplemented by television advertisements if it were to be a success. The campaign is indeed more than that. We were conscious of the fact that one of the problems in detecting vandalism was that those who reported acts of vandalism were apprehensive about the possibility of having to appear in court as witnesses.
Part of our campaign involves an agreement with the chief police officers in Scotland through the Police Federation and

381
the Superintendents' Association—who have been most co-operative—that those reporting acts of vandalism will not have to give their names and addresses. We hope that this will lead to a vast increase in the number of acts of vandalism that are reported.
This brings me to the strength of the police force in Scotland and the action that the police can take against vandalism. It has to be said that we now have more policemen in Scotland than ever before. There is, however, little point in building up a police force and providing it with sophisticated techniques and high-speed cars if acts of vandalism are not reported. One of the greatest problems lies in the failure of the people, who must see these acts being committed, to report them to the police. One of the aims of the anti-vandalism campaign is to encourage people to report such acts without the need to give their names and addresses, thus avoiding the necessity for them to appear in court as witnesses.
I agree that sociologists will argue for a long time about the causes of vandalism. I am on record as saying, at least three or four times, that it is attributable to a breakdown in family life in Scotland and a disregard for people and their property. Once we have restored the concept of family life as a basis in our society and restored respect for people and their property we shall begin to come to grips with the costly problem of vandalism. I noted with interest the story in today's Glasgow Herald to the effect that Strathclyde was claiming that the cost of vandalism in the region was of the order of £8 million. I am not in a position to confirm that figure, but it is very high, as are the figures for the rest of Scotland, and vandalism is probably the greatest waste of money that Scotland sees from day to day. When I am asked whether it is possible to provide health centres or some other social need, I often wish that people would appreciate that if only some of the resources devoted to countering vandalism were free for other purposes, we could probably look more sympathetically at some of these other social needs.
The problem of the List D schools is giving the Government serious concern. It is not a problem that lends itself to being easily resolved, but we are looking closely at it. We are anxious to receive
382
any suggestions that will lend themselves to a solution. However, we shall keep it under the closest consideration.
The 10 to 16-year-old age group is a problem, because it is in that group that we have the highest number of vandals. It is worth noting that many of the acts of vandalism—this seems to me to defeat the argument by sociologists on the question of deprivation—are committed by youngsters having a night out and having spent quite a lot of money.
In the Government's view the children's panels are doing an excellent job. They are doing their best. They have committed more children to List D schools than the old juvenile court system did. While we are considering the range of treatment available to the panels, it behoves us all to give them more support than they have received hitherto, because every time someone makes a speech saying that they are defective, the children who have the misfortune to appear before them may have a little more strength to feel that there is nothing for them to fear, when, on the contrary, there is a great deal for such children to be apprehensive about in appearing before the children's panels. We should give the panels and their members the greatest possible support.
It is worth noting that the Government are spending almost double the amount of money on social work compared with what was being spent five years ago. If there has been a growth in public expenditure, it has certainly been on social work.
My hon. Friend asked when the Pack Committee will report. I understand that it may do so next spring. I agree that there is need to involve more young people in deciding their own destiny. For every vandal there are perhaps 20 youngsters making an excellent contribution to society, and we should do something to encourage them, by their example, to try to influence people of their own age group to understand that acts of vandalism mean damaging themselves and their parents financially. That is the best hope we have for coming to terms with the problems of vandalism.
My hon. Friend referred to football hooliganism. I agree that youngsters are chasing youngsters of their own age away from the game through their conduct

383
both on and off the terracing, inside and outside the ground. There can be no doubt that the game will die if this sort of thing is not stopped.
With regard to leisure and recreation, I know that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Scottish Education Department understands that proposals are in hand for the purchase of the Methodist church hall in my hon. Friend's constituency, under the urban aid programme.
Mr. Craigen: The Methodist church hall is in fact in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), but I am none the less pleased to hear about this development.
Mr. Ewing: There is obviously a difficulty about postal addresses. The address was given to me as Maryhill, and perhaps it was an assumption on my part to suggest that takes in my hon. Friend's constituency Maryhill. The hall is to cost about £35,000, and it will be used as a community centre. The Strathclyde Regional Council is supporting the scheme.
That is only one example, but time prohibits me from giving many more. We have to encourage both local authorities and other organisations to do something to help provide facilities for
384
youngsters, to attempt to keep them off the street and make them more community-conscious. I have a hope, also, that when the new community councils come into being they will provide a service in this respect and will help to make the youngsters more community-conscious.
I end where my hon. Friend finished his remarks. The campaign that we have launched against vandalism has really got to be a success. I believe that we are on the point of a break-through in this field, and I am hoping that the campaign we have launched will give a stimulus to the public in reporting these incidents and therefore increase the detection rate of the police, who do a magnificent job in very difficult circumstances.
In my time as Minister responsible for the police I have stood four-square behind them in all that they seek to do, and I pay eloquent tribute to their work in this field. The campaign, the police and the public—all three put together—could lead to a major breakthrough in our fight against vandalism—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  NATO (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  NATO (SECRETARY-GENERAL)
  TOLLESBY
  TOLLESBY
  ABERDARON
  ABERDARON
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CABINET PAPERS (INQUIRY)
  CABINET PAPERS (INQUIRY)
  MIDLANDS
  MIDLANDS
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  LIVERPOOL
  LIVERPOOL
  FAR EAST
  FAR EAST
  GUISBOROUGH
  GUISBOROUGH
  GENEVA
  GENEVA
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  INDIA
  INDIA
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  NATO (VETTING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  NATO (VETTING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  LOFTUS
  LOFTUS
  COURT CASES (SENTENCES)
  COURT CASES (SENTENCES)
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Local Authority Meetings (Public Access)
  Local Authority Meetings (Public Access)
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
  Parishes (Rates)
  Parishes (Rates)
  Rate Rebates (South Norfolk and Breckland)
  Rate Rebates (South Norfolk and Breckland)
  Housing Finance Review
  Housing Finance Review
  Architects
  Architects
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Policy
  Fisheries Policy
  Giant Hogweed
  Giant Hogweed
  Gumboro Disease Vaccines
  Gumboro Disease Vaccines
  Slaughtering
  Slaughtering
EMPLOYMENT
  Health and Safety (Ionising Radiation)
  Health and Safety (Ionising Radiation)
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Public Service
  Public Service
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Training
  Training
  Departmental Press Officers
  Departmental Press Officers
  Alloa and Falkirk (School Leavers)
  Alloa and Falkirk (School Leavers)
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  QRS International Shipping and Travel Ltd.
  QRS International Shipping and Travel Ltd.
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Israel
  Israel
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers (British Presidency)
  Council of Ministers (British Presidency)
TRANSPORT
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Drivers (Tachographs and Hours of Work)
  Lorry Drivers (Tachographs and Hours of Work)
ENERGY
  Oil and Gas Processing
  Oil and Gas Processing
  Fuel and Power Supplies
  Fuel and Power Supplies
  Conservation Advisory Council
  Conservation Advisory Council
  Oil Yields (North Sea)
  Oil Yields (North Sea)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Resignation and Reinstatement)
  Civil Servants (Resignation and Reinstatement)
  Government Offices (Cleaning)
  Government Offices (Cleaning)
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
  Mr. Boris Ponomarev
  Mr. Boris Ponomarev
  Pensions (Public Services)
  Pensions (Public Services)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Employment Review Case Work
  Employment Review Case Work
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Pharmacies
  Pharmacies
  Giro Cheques
  Giro Cheques
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Benefit Payments and Costs
  Benefit Payments and Costs
  Medical Supplies (Imports)
  Medical Supplies (Imports)
  Community Homes
  Community Homes
  Unruly Certificates (Girls)
  Unruly Certificates (Girls)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Hillingdon Accommodation (Interim Works)
  Hillingdon Accommodation (Interim Works)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Retired Persons (Reduced Pension Rates)
  Retired Persons (Reduced Pension Rates)
  Hospitals (Waiting Times)
  Hospitals (Waiting Times)
  Subsidies and Welfare Benefits
  Subsidies and Welfare Benefits
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Degrees (Sale)
  Degrees (Sale)
  TUC (Government Grant)
  TUC (Government Grant)
  Sheffield Centre for Innovation and Productivity
  Sheffield Centre for Innovation and Productivity
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
DEFENCE
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
  Chieftain Tanks
  Chieftain Tanks
  Soviet Ship "Kiev"
  Soviet Ship "Kiev"
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Chile
  Chile
  NATO
  NATO
  BAOR
  BAOR
  Pentland Hills
  Pentland Hills
  Married Quarters (Electricity Bills)
  Married Quarters (Electricity Bills)
  Information Offices
  Information Offices
  Gurkha Rifles (Brunei)
  Gurkha Rifles (Brunei)
  MRCA
  MRCA
  Fisheries and Offshore Rigs
  Fisheries and Offshore Rigs
  Contracts
  Contracts
  United States of America (Defense Secretary)
  United States of America (Defense Secretary)
  Airborne Early Warning System
  Airborne Early Warning System
  Admiralty Compass Observatory
  Admiralty Compass Observatory
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Rent Act 1974
  Rent Act 1974
  Explosives (Transport)
  Explosives (Transport)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Royal Army Veterinary Establishment, Melton Mowbray
  Royal Army Veterinary Establishment, Melton Mowbray
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Elections (Voting)
  Local Government Elections (Voting)
  Albany Prison
  Albany Prison
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Social Security Benefits (Cost)
  Social Security Benefits (Cost)
  Social Security (Prisoners' Dependants)
  Social Security (Prisoners' Dependants)
  Ambulance Service (Ballycastle)
  Ambulance Service (Ballycastle)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Taxes, Insurance Contributions, Revenue and Charges
  Taxes, Insurance Contributions, Revenue and Charges
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Income Tax Concessions
  Income Tax Concessions
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Public Services (Purchasing Policy)
  Public Services (Purchasing Policy)
  Treasury Guarantees
  Treasury Guarantees
  Members of Parliament (Pay)
  Members of Parliament (Pay)
  Trees and Timber
  Trees and Timber
INDUSTRY
  Steel (Oil Wells)
  Steel (Oil Wells)
  Post Office (Purchasing Policy)
  Post Office (Purchasing Policy)
TRADE
  Company Documents (Filing)
  Company Documents (Filing)
  Glass
  Glass
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  British Lion Films Limited
  British Lion Films Limited
  Indian Textiles
  Indian Textiles
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle and Lamb Exports
  Cattle and Lamb Exports
SCOTLAND
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Students' Unions
  Students' Unions
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  M876
  M876
  Hospitals (Purchasing Policy)
  Hospitals (Purchasing Policy)
  Local Government Oil-related Expenditure
  Local Government Oil-related Expenditure
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Electricity Generating
  Electricity Generating
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
WALES
  Welsh Language (Hospitals)
  Welsh Language (Hospitals)
  Factories
  Factories
  Wool Production
  Wool Production
  Agriculture
  Agriculture

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

MR. PONOMARYOV'S VISIT
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have impressed on Mr. Ponomaryov during his visit here the necessity for the USSR to comply with the terms of the Helsinki Agreement; their obligation to refrain from persecuting those who apply for visas to leave the USSR; and the feelings of many in the United Kingdom resulting from the action recently taken against Jewish scientists and others who have applied for these visas.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed with Mr. Ponomaryov the need for the fulfilment of all the provisions of the Final Act of the European Security Conference. He and other members of the Government have repeatedly brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities the strong feelings which exist in this country about certain human rights questions.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of the recent visit to this country of one of the outstanding persons—I nearly said, personalities—in the USSR, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government brought to his notice the horrific cases of persecutions that are still occurring in that country, with scientists, among others being arrested, being beaten up, and now with the possibility of the old system of show trials taking place, actuated not only against those individuals but against everybody else seeking permits to leave the USSR, despite the Helsinki Agreement? Cannot
178
something definite be done to prevent the continuance of this state of affairs? May I ask my noble friend about two specific cases, that of Yosif As, who has been arrested and who is a very eminent surgeon, and Chernobilsky, a very eminent engineer? Are the Government aware of the appeals that have been made on their behalf by cultural and scientific people of the highest rank not only in the USSR but throughout the world?
Baroness LLEWELYN DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and, I believe, the whole House are aware of the concern that is felt in the world about these human rights questions. I can assure my noble friend, without of course being able to give precise details about the conversation which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had with Mr. Ponomaryov, that he was left in no doubt at all about the concern felt about these questions not only by my noble friend but by most people in this country. As to the details of the two cases about which my noble friend gave names, I am afraid that I should require notice.

MOZAMBIQUE AND RHODESIA
2.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: 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 percentage of the £15 million offered in aid to Mozambique to compensate for the cost of sanctions against Rhodesia has so far been paid, and whether they propose to pay the balance in the light of the continuing hostilities on the border between Rhodesia and Mozambique.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, British development assistance for Mozambique has been allocated in the light of her economic circumstances. The cost of imposing United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia is only one factor that has been taken into account. A loan agreement for the first £5 million was signed in August. Orders for the supply of British

179
goods agreed under the loan will soon be submitted and no payments have therefore been made. Discussions are proceeding about a number of projects that might be financed from the balance of the £15 million.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it not the case that the cessation of guerrilla activities was a fundamental part of the Callaghan-Kissinger agreement reached earlier this year? Is she satisfied, therefore, that the funds which are to be made available can properly still be held available for those people bearing in mind that the guerrilla activities are apparently continuing apace; and can she also comment on the wide reports that have been circulating to the effect that there are now Cuban pilots flying for the Mozambique authorities against the Rhodesians?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think everybody hopes that peaceful solutions will be found to the very serious problems of Southern Africa and the question of the guerrillas comes into that, too. The question of assistance and aid to countries as poor as Mozambique are quite separate from that. Every assistance that we have given to the Government of Mozambique has been, and has been acknowledged by them to have been, purely for peaceful purposes. We are very careful about that and so are they. I am afraid that I could not, without notice, answer the noble Lord's further point about Cuban pilots. Perhaps he will table a Question on the subject.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are many of us on this side who are deeply disturbed by the lack of Government activity in trying to persuade the Africans to stop guerrilla activities while the conference is on in Geneva? It all seems to be very much a one-way traffic.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is himself privy to all the conversations that are going on in Geneva or in this country in the Foreign Office. If he is, I am not.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in that case, if my question is wrong, would the noble Baroness now get up and condemn it?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I said in answer to the previous question that I thought the whole House wished for a peaceful solution in Rhodesia and very much hoped that guerrilla activities would no longer have to continue.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: But, my Lords, do the Government not realise that this is not the end of the matter? Juristically speaking, Rhodesia is a British colony and it will so remain until independence is granted. Do the Government really mean to say that because all or most of us disapprove of Mr. Smith's activities they will allow British territory to be invaded without a protest?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord really knows the answer to that question. We have no military presence in Rhodesia and there is no question of our being able to prevent incursions into Rhodesian territory. I think that that is really rather wide of the mark.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be able to tell the House how we are to monitor the aid which is to be channelled to Mozambique as, as I understand it, we have no diplomatic representatives in that country? Would it not be good to set up somebody to tell us what is going on in Mozambique so as to ensure that the £15 million will not be mis-spent, and perhaps to obtain details of who is aiding Mozambique in its warfare against Rhodesia?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, those are two separate questions. We are confident about the monitoring. Every single item of agreement that is entered into is done by us under an end use certificate. Most of the agreements that have been made so far are for very simple developmental aid. As to the future projects, there are things like livestock, rural roadwork, agricultural implement projects and items of that kind. I do not think that there can be any problem at all about monitoring

181
those, given the undertakings that we have accepted from the Government of Mozambique.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that aid, however innocently intended and however innocently used, does release resources for other purposes?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is an argument that is very often used. I can assure the noble Earl and the House that the poverty in Mozambique is of an order which has to be seen to be believed. Any drop of money that goes there is desperately needed—and let us not forget that the Commonwealth and many other countries are sending technical assistance to Mozambique and are helping as the United Nations has asked them to; but even that help will be a drop in the ocean of poverty. The extra that they may possibly spend in what we may regard as an unfortunate way really does not arise. May I also say, in answer to the previous question, that of course we have a British Ambassador in Mozambique.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, is it not the case that the five "front line" Presidents have publicly declared their total commitment to war in Southern Africa? While agreeing with the noble Baroness that we have no power to influence events directly, would it not be a good plan for Her Majesty's Government to draw the attention of the United Nations to this evident threat to the peace of the world?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I believe that the world is agreed that Mr. Smith's attitude over the last ten years has been an evident threat to the peace of Southern Africa. This has been discussed many times at the United Nations and elsewhere. Of course Her Majesty's Government have noted the statements by the five African countries concerned. It may be the intransigence of Mr. Smith, which seems to have been diminishing lately, has made them rather pessimistic about the future; but in any case they are independent countries and are entitled to say what they say.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: But, my Lords, does not the
182
noble Baroness find it difficult to understand, as I do, how, even assuming the truth of what she says about Mr. Smith, one can possibly reconcile total commitment to war with the elementary obligations of the Charter of the United Nations?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the whole question of the fight for the independence of nations is riddled with contradictions and confusion which the noble and learned Lord, as a historian, will understand. One cannot specify in any particular issue of this kind. Of course it is mixed up. Of course the Africans are fighting for their independence and sometimes they use methods that we ourselves should not wish to condone. Further than that I cannot go.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that so far as Rhodesia is concerned the previous Government are not without blame, because the dissatisfaction and the disunity came into being during a period when a Tory Government was in power, when Mr. Smith came over here and was not able to finalise the offers that were made to him by that previous Government? Is it not true to say that Her Majesty's Government, since taking over the responsibility of what was left to them as a form of inheritance, have done everything possible to bring peace to that part of the world?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have done everything possible in the most appallingly difficult circumstances.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if some of us have been silent during this exchange it has not been because we fail to support the Government fully, but because we feel that she has so admirably answered the questions from the other side?

BNOC AND THE TREATY OF ROME
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there could be any conflict between Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome, on fair trading, and the dominant position in the market for crude oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf which BNOC aims to secure through the voluntary agreement of producing companies to sell 51 per cent. of their output to it.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the brevity of his reply, I should like to ask whether he has familiarised himself with Article 86 of the Treaty, and whether it is not the case that a company which has a dominant position in a major part of the European Community Market could be open to charges of distorting trade if it limits production to the prejudice of consumers or uses its cartel position in any other ways to limit competition?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I cannot agree. Merely having secured access to 51 per cent. of North Sea oil in, of course, the public interest does not give a dominant position in regard to the crude oil market, taking into account crude from the North Sea together with the availability of similar alternative oil from other sources available to multinational oil companies.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that further precision of the Government's view; but would he not agree that where the market for refined spirit is concerned a control of more than half of the refined spirit resulting from production in the North Sea—the largest within Western Europe—must lead, or at any rate can lead, to distortions of competition and can place other traders in a disadvantageous position in the downstream market?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords. The Article prohibits abuse of a dominant position, not the mere existence of one.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree
184
that placing competitive traders at a disadvantage is an abuse as defined under the Article?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, BNOC does not have a dominant position. It is absurd to argue that BNOC is abusing a position it has not got.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the United Kingdom is likely to be exporting offshore oil to at least one other member of the EEC within four years, while being ourselves self-sufficient in oil, are the Government aware that there might then be contravention of Articles 37 and 90 of the Treaty of Rome, and have the Government yet had any discussions with the Commission about these matters and the proposed role of BNOC?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Question was about Article 86, but I can say to the noble Lord that BNOC's share of trade within the EEC will at best be about 10 per cent. With regard to the second question of the noble Lord, we have not been in touch with the European Commission about conflicts between the Treaty and Her Majesty's Government's participation policy because we do not intend to come into conflict with the Treaty.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, did the Government arrive at this view purely by means of consultation among themselves, or did they in fact consult the Commission with respect to the Answer which the noble Lord has given today?
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, why is it that the Party opposite always get so annoyed when the British people begin to gain from this possession?
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am very far from being annoyed? I always enjoy the noble Lord's answers to my questions as I always enjoy answers from the other side. The noble Lord said just now that BNOC does not have 51 per cent., but the whole point is that it is aiming to get it in what is a critical part of the European market for refined products.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is 51 per cent. of the United Kingdom's oil production. It is not a dominant position in the oil market of Europe. Secondly, as I pointed out, BNOC has 10 per cent. only of this trade, and secondly the Article deals with an abuse of a dominant position, not the mere fact of having a dominant position, whatever the noble Earl may want to imply.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that reply.

INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND "TIMES" NEWSPAPER
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made representations to the Government of India on the reported seizure over the past two months by that Government, of a number of issues of The Times newspaper.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Indian Government are fully aware of our views about the measures taken under the State of Emergency and of the importance we attach to the principle of the free exchange of news and information. We much regret that British newspapers and periodicals should apparently be subject to censorship. No official representations have been made.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, so far as one can see from having read these issues, nothing was published in them to which any Government, least of all the Indian Government, could possibly have taken exception? Although the noble Baroness has given an assurance that the Indian Government fully understand our feelings or our position in this matter, would she be prepared to say that we value our association in the Commonwealth with that country and of course the preservation of free publication and free speech?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. In fact the British Press itself has not made any representations to Her Majesty's Government, but of course we are aware that British periodicals, for whatever reason, have been intercepted. I should very much like to echo what the noble Lord has said. I know his feelings about this area of the world. I think that India has always held a very special place in the minds and indeed the hearts of the British people, and it is therefore of very special concern to us that this situation should exist there.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any information as to what particular items in The Times newspaper were so inflammatory as to excite the anger of the Indian censors?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords, and, so far as I know, the noble and learned Lord has not written there recently.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why no official representations have been made? Is she aware that it was a Labour Government who, against great opposition and probably in the opinion of many mistakenly, provided self-government for India? Surely having done so there is a responsebility, and they would expect at least freedom for the Press and freedom for every citizen in India? Why have there not been official representations?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on this side of the House we are very proud of our record in the Indian Continent. I am quite sure that my noble friend will understand that the Indian Government are very fully aware of our views about this matter. But we have discovered that in many countries in all parts of the world the British Press is frequently interfered with, and, in our experience, to make official representations really serves very little purpose.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Listowel be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Birk, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report stage of the Rent (Agriculture) Bill be marshalled and considered in the following Order, viz.:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 2 to 8,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 9 to 11,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 12 to 16,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 17 to 31,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 32 to 34,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 35 and 36,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 37 to 42,

Schedules 8 and 9.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount ST. DAVIDS Viscount ST. DAVIDS had given Notice of his intention to move as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to speak to my Amendment, which I am not now intending to take to a Division, I think it right that we in this House should take every possible opportunity at this present moment to hoist a storm warning to the effect that Members of this House, while attempting to behave as gentlemen, are going to find it more and more difficult if no account is taken of the very valuable contributions and Amendments which we have been making to various Bills. Yesterday I took strongly the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who said that we had worked very hard on the Dock Work Regulation Bill. We had indeed; and we have worked very hard on this Bill. It would seem a great shame, by rejecting the Bill at this moment, simply to throw all our Amendments in the dustbin; but, my Lords, into the dustbin they are going to go if something is not done at a later stage.
I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he says that there is a tactical reason for not rejecting Bills at this stage; but, my Lords, a tactical retreat has its purpose. Its purpose is to enable a later advance to be made. A tactical retreat is not merely the opening stage of a further retreat. I think that what we must say today, of this Bill and others which are now passing through this House and which will shortly be returning to us, is that every storm warning must be hoisted to the effect that, unless our reasons are listened to and our more reasonable Amendments are included in the Bills, then those Bills are in danger. At some moment, my Lords, the retreat must stop, and I think we should let another place know that that is our firm intention.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 3 [Powers of the Corporations]:
Lord CARR of HADLEY Lord CARR of HADLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
("() No consent or general authority shall be given in pursuance of the preceding subsection in relation to subsection 3(i)(b) above

189
unless a draft of the document containing it has been laid before Parliament and approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I bring forward any arguments in support of this Amendment, I should like to draw attention to two errors in the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List, of which I believe the Government are aware. I make no charges about how they came about; it is as likely to be my fault as anybody else's. If we have any excuse it is the extreme rush in which it has had to be put down, seeing that we finished the Report stage only at tea-time on Friday. The two errors in the Amendment as printed are, first, in the second line of the proposed new subsection, where there ought to be the word "or" inserted after "subsection" and before "in"; and, secondly, in the last line but one of the Amendment, the word "approval" ought to be "approved", but I think that that will be quite clear to your Lordships when the Amendment is studied.
This matter was raised, I think on Report stage, in an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, from the Liberal Benches. It concerns the powers—not the duties, but the powers—which the Bill gives to the Corporations. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, it will be seen that the powers which the Corporations are entitled to exercise are defined in Clause 3(1)(a) as:
"…any activities which were carried on, immediately before the date of transfer, by a company which, by virtue of this Act, becomes the Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary".
As I said when we were debating this at Report stage, this at least leaves us quite clear about what all these companies can do. We are in no doubt about it; it is clearly defined. So far as those activities are concerned, although I am not wholly satisfied I am perfectly prepared to allow the Government to do what they wish; that is, for the Corporations, in respect of those already-defined activities, to enter into mergers, make agreements and so on and so forth, as described in subsection (2) of the clause, without further Parliamentary scrutiny and approval. As I say, I am not wholly satisfied with that, but in the circumstances I am prepared to accept it and to advise my noble friends to accept it as well.
That is not the end of the story, because under Clause 3(1)(b) your Lordships will see that the new Corporations will be able to do other things as well. It says that:
"…with the consent of, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by, the Secretary of State",
they can undertake any other activities to which the Secretary of State's consent or authority relates. In other words, as the Bill stands at the moment the Secretary of State can give to these new Corporations powers to enter into any industry or activity he thinks fit. We may say that the present Secretary of State, and even the present Government, would not envisage entering into activities wholly foreign and unrelated to the purposes for which these Corporations are being set up. That may be the genuine intention of the present Secretary of State and the present Government; but this Statute goes on after the tenure of office of the present Secretary of State and, I fear, perhaps, after the tenure of office of the present Government, and I do not believe that we ought to give to all Secretaries of State of all Governments in future the authority to increase the powers of these Corporations without any Parliamentary authority or scrutiny of any kind. I submit to your Lordships that this is a totally different order of power from that which merely permits them to extend their activities in fields which are already defined by the duties laid down in this Bill and by the terms of the memoranda and articles of association of the various companies which are going to be vested in these Corporations.
Therefore, we are saying in this Amendment that, in so far as any Secretary of State in the future chooses to act under Clause (3)(1)(b) and to give these Corporations wholly new powers to enter into any sort of manufacture that comes into his mind, then we do not believe that that increase in the power of the Corporations ought to be made without the approval of Parliament. So this Amendment applies to activities under Clause 3(1)(b), and to activities under subsection (2) related to Clause 3(1)(b), the necessity that before any changes can be made there must be Parliamentary approval by Statutory Instrument subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I hope that your Lordships in all parts of the House will feel that this is a reasonable and proper restraint on the exercise of power by the

191
Secretary of State, whoever it may be, in the Government of whatever Party one may think of, either in the present or the future. I simply do not believe that powers of this kind ought to be extendable without some form of Parliamentary approval. That, my Lords, is the case behind this Amendment, and I ask your Lordships to think about it and to agree that it is reasonable. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, in view of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, on what emanated from the Liberal Benches, may I say on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches that we support the Amendment he now proposes. Your Lordships may be aware that from these Benches I have had the privilege of moving several Amendments intended to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State. We feel that the powers of the Secretary of State are far too wide in this Bill and that too great interference is possible by the action of the Secretary of State in view of the present wording. I rise briefly to say, while not repeating my former arguments, that from these Benches we support the noble Lord, Lord Carr, on the proposed Amendment.
Lord VAIZEY:My Lords, I should like to oppose the Amendment. These two industries are industries in grave difficulty and they are in difficulties of different kinds. One is an industry which is old and declining where the Japanese have got something like 96 per cent. of the new orders, according to The Times Supplement. The other, the aerospace industry, is a modern industry which is depending enormously on the orders of the defence sector and we are of much less importance as a defence power than we used to be. The issue which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has raised is whether or not these two new Corporations which it is proposed to set up should have more general powers given them in the Bill to engage in commercial and industrial activity of a more general kind than perhaps could be narrowly prescribed by a very narrow nationalisation Act such as has been passed in the past by this House and another place. Bearing in mind the enormous experience of the noble Lord,
192
Lord Carr, in another place, in Government and in business, it is with great diffidence that I beg to differ from him on this particular issue. But I think this issue is important and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a moment if I raise certain general issues which I think are of interest and importance to all noble Lords and to the nation.
There are different ways of running the economy and of running our society. It would be a foolish and ignorant person who did not realise that we had reached the parting of the ways. This is the crunch. This is the point at which we must decide where we are going from here. The country is in desperate straits and this Bill raises issues of profound importance. Unless we are quite clear where we stand and unless we can make clear to our people where we stand, I think we shall be in an even worse situation. We have to try at this stage on this issue to decide what we are doing. I make clear the issue on which I stand and which this particular Amendment raises crucially. It is a crucial issue whether or not we believe in the future of a social democratic way of running industry. There are certain issues which are very important which are raised by this Bill about the future or our economy. I do not believe that we can run an economy in this country without an incomes policy; I do not believe we can run an economy in this country without very high investment in the public sector and in the private sector. We cannot run an economy without adequate differentials between the managerial groups, skilled groups and unskilled groups. That is ground which I think will be overwhelmingly supported by about 90 per cent. of the population of the country.
The reason why I venture to raise this matter—which might be said to be a Second Reading kind of remark—is that I think it absolutely essential. It is whether or not these State Corporations should have the more general power which in the past has rested with private entrepreneurs and private business; whether or not it is right that this particular power should not in the future lie in the public sector—the power of initiative and the power of enterprise and of generating the new investment and new ideas so necessary if this country is to be saved. We are at the point where if

193
we do not make the move now, in the next couple of years, we might as well pack up and go home for the country will be finished. That is the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has raised. It is where we stand.
We are a non-elected House. We are a House which defies the other House at our peril. I spent 45 years as a commoner; I am quite prepared to spend the next 47 years, like my noble friend Lord Shinwell, as a commoner too if they do away with us; but the fact is that we defy the other place at our peril and we want to be quite sure that we defy the other place on grounds which are sensible and reasonable. To deny to the nationalised industries, to deny to the corporations which run a very substantial part of our economy, to deny to these new Corporations, and to the National Coal Board—to deny to all these industries the power of initiative and of enterprise which in the past has belonged to private capitalists and entrepreneurs is to take a position which in the long run is indefensible.
My Lords, I am sure that the over-whelming majority of my noble friends on this side of the House will be with me in saying that we believe in a mixed economy. We are not dyed-in-the-wool Marxists believing that 95 per cent. of the economy should be run by the Civil Service. We believe in a mixed economy. On the whole, this is something shared by the great majority of the House on all sides. If you are going to say that the only initiative can come from the private sector and that initiative cannot come from the public sector, you are handicapping the public sector to a degree which is quite indefensible. I gave votes yesterday with a heavy heart. My father worked on the Thames. He left school at 13. His father left school at 12 and he worked on the Thames, and his father before him, and his father before him. They all worked on the River Thames. I supported a Bill which I think was, frankly, not one that I would have been happy to support if there had been different circumstances; but I do not believe that we should defy the elected House.
Obviously the noble Lord will carry his Amendment because of the built-in majority. In this particular issue, I think as a matter of principle the noble Lord is arguing a case which is wrong. It is
194
indefensible. If you want public servants, the people who are working in the public sector—the men who run the British Air Authority, for example—to have initiative and enterprise you must give them the power to do it. Frankly, the issue of ownership is an issue of the past, while the issue of management is an issue of the present and of the future.
This issue we are now dealing with through the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, which from his point of view is a reasonable one; and I would not for a moment argue against it if did not think it was reasonable. Frankly, if we want to seee public enterprise succeed in this country, it must be given the powers that private enterprise has. That is why you cannot restrict the powers of these Corporations in this particular respect. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, for whom I have immense admiration, I think that in this particular issue the Government are right, the Opposition are wrong, and the Corporations should be given these powers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if I may make a brief reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken, does he not make one great error? Is it fair, in the interests of the country, that private enterprise competition having been removed by making enterprises public, the same freedom to operate should apply to the public enterprise as applies to the private enter-prise? Private enterprise has the freedom to do all sorts of things in the interests of of a company's shareholders, managers and, above all, employees. It is reasonable freedom because the company is in competition with other firms pursuing the same activity.
I have great sympathy with the thought behind the noble Lord's speech. When you amalgamate a whole group of companies pursuing the same enterprise there is no competition and you create a new picture. This is the conundrum. The fact is that, quite apart from Parties, it has been thought necessary by successive Governments from both sides of the House to fetter in some way the public enterprise because it has no competition. This then means that it cannot do all the things it would like to do. But without competition it might like to do things that would not

195
be in the public interest. If there is no fetter on it other than the competitive world, how can we be sure that it does the right things in our interest?
So I strongly suggest that this concept of essential goodness in publicly-controlled enterprises is a myth. It is not something which happens in the real world; it is something which happens only in the imaginary world. Therefore if you must take companies into public enterprise—and all the evidence is that this is not the most efficient way of organising them—it is essential to have controls upon how they behave.
3.23 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the last thing I wish to do is to defy another place. Whatever we may think of it, it is the basis of our democratic system. I prefer the democratic system, despite its obvious defects, to any alternative. That is all I want to say about that. Nor do I wish to take part in a debate on private enterprise versus nationalisation: we can leave that for another occasion. We are debating an Amendment to a particular piece of legislation. I am concerned about that. I must confess that although I accept almost every line and comma in the speech of my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and the theory and potential, underlying it, I reject his conclusion. We are discussing whether, in dealing with legislation of a fundamental character, we are going to be specific or nebulous. This is what the debate is about. I prefer to be specific in so far as it is possible to be specific.
I should have thought that we were approaching the end—I have the word on the tip of my tongue so I had better use it, though I dislike it—of this turgid debate, prolonged almost beyond endurance with repetition which almost makes one go to sleep. I should have preferred to finish with it all. It appears—whether because of the intrusion of a baby or of an internee I am not quite sure—as if this legislation will pass. I do not want to bother about it. I am concerned that in this legislation we should know what we are talking about—and not only those of us who are responsible for the legislation but those who have to implement it and apply it.
196
I divide the two items, British Aerospace and British shipbuilding. I say nothing about British Aerospace. I have been very careful in the course of these debates not to talk on something I know nothing about—British Aerospace. But I know something about shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is a specific industry; it builds ships. It does not sell them;it leaves that to the shipping industry. The purpose of this legislation, as I understand my Government friends—and they can correct me if I am wrong—is to provide jobs. It has been said over and over again that it is to maintain an efficient industry, to use its potential against harsh competition and to make it viable. That is its purpose. I could use many other adjectives but I am content with that. I hope that your Lordships will accept it in that form.
What ought to be done? We talk about furnishing power to the shipbuilding industry, when nationalised, to engage in other activities with the consent of the Secretary of State. What are the other activities? The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, gave a hint about it. He spoke about the commercial activities. What does that mean? The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in the course of a previous debate, said that it might mean, in the general sense, making paper bags. I do not think it means that at all. What does it mean? The fact is, nobody knows, not even the Secretary of State.
We have a parallel example in the nationalisation of the coalmining industry. When it was nationalised the purpose was to produce and distribute coal. Naturally, we had to consider utilising the coal if we could not sell it for other purposes. That meant by-products, tar, benzole, petroleum products and even aspirin. These are part of the organic industry. There is the possibility of development, of expansion and so on. That we can understand. But in shipbuilding, what is there? I put this to my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who is an economist, which I am not, and therefore he is more knowledgeable than I am. Suppose nationalisation failed? Suppose it was defective, it collapsed, that there was a remnant of it, financial or otherwise, what would be done? In the economic sphere what could be done? I cannot imagine that anything could be done.

197
It is better to be specific about it; I suggest that this is what is wanted. I do not know whether this equates with the Amendment, but this is what I have in mind. The industry, when nationalised, should not be permitted to engage in other activities unless they are closely associated with shipbuilding. On no account should the industry be permitted to proceed other than to build ships, unless Parliament, which has responsibility in an Affirmative Resolution, decides accordingly. That is the democratic system. My noble friend Lord Vaizey would not object to an Affirmative Resolution; otherwise one places the responsibility not only on the Secretary of State but on Members of Parliament, and that would include perhaps not us but someone who follows us. I would certainly make no claim to be able to take part in any future years. So that is the situation, and I cannot understand why my friends on the Front Bench cannot accept a simple Amendment of this kind. They might not like the language, but it. could be amended on the lines I have suggested, either as an Affirmative Resolution Procedure or explicitly stating that the Secretary of State can act only if he provides regulations which have been furnished to the industry and which are the basis of their operations.
I believe that is the proper course of conduct for the Government. It may be that my Government friends feel a little lost on this dire episode, this prolonged controversy, and they ask, "What is the use of bothering about it?" Even if it means the intrusion of the baby and the internee in the other place, I would accept this. It is a perfectly reasonable Amendment which may require slight amendment, though I accept its purpose and the principle underlying it. I think that that should be acepted by my noble friends.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, it was not easy to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was trying to argue. But I gather he was saying that he virtually objected to the last sentence in my noble friend's Amendment wherein it says that the authority will not be able to do things without first putting a draft document which has to be approved by. Resolution by both Houses of Parliament He felt that that was an unnecessary restriction upon the ability of the Corpora-
198
tion to do its work properly. But, if the noble Lord does not want that kind of thing, he ought never to vote for giving a monopoly to the operation of a necessity. If he gives a monopoly to a necessity, which no private enterprise organisation has, one is either manipulating a monopoly and giving it dictatorial powers which override Parliament, or, having given that monopoly to that necessity, Parliament has to keep an eye on it and keep the eventual control. So if the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, objects to that kind of sentence, he ought not to have done what he did yesterday and go reluctantly into the Lobby and vote for something that he did not think was right. If he does not think that this essential restriction against what could be a dictatorial monopoly has to be retained, then he ought not to have put us in the position that he did.
I was interested in the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, saying that he wanted the same freedom for nationalised industries that private enterprise industries have. There is one freedom the private enterprise industries have which nationalised Industries do not suffer from; that is, they have the freedom to go bankrupt if they make a mistake, and that is a restriction upon them not doing stupid or extreme things. A nationalised industry cannot go bankrupt. So unless one wants to make the grievous mistake of nationalising at all, and one is not going to keep a safety chain of control from Parliament which can be objective, then, in the first place, one ought not to go into it. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said everybody agreed with a mixed economy. I am getting bored with noble Lords on the other side of the House saying they agree with a mixed economy. When does a mixed economy cease to be a mixed economy? It is 60:40 at the moment. Is it still a mixed economy when it is 75:25? Is it still a mixed economy when it is 90:10? Is it still a mixed economy when it is 99:1? At what stage? It has gone past the point on these essential industries where we can call it a mixed economy.
The reason one ought to resist this strongly is that we are now moving into an area where we are nationalising Industries which have to compete in the world markets, as distinct from having nationalised industries which have only local domestic control. That makes it even more dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord

199
Vaizey, was not clear; but where he was clear he was contradictory, and I think he should either withdraw his vote of yesterday or support my noble friend in his Amendment today.
3.34 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, agrees that we are discussing two industries both of which compete in a virile world market so that they are not covered in any way by the considerations he was offering to the House. I would have thought that one of the great problems we could all agree about is that the manufacturing sector of our economy is too small. Yet within a manufacturing sector that is too small we are seeing redundancies by the thousands taking place. This is a contradiction, a dichotomy if you will. But surely it means that we are producing many of the wrong things.
I do not wish to indict anybody, but I would have thought the problem is that we are not diversifying in our manufacuting sector half as much as we ought to be doing. If we were, we would not be in the dilemma which we now face. Therefore, I would have thought that to restrict in the way the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, restricts in two industries, both of which need expansion, is indeed the "kiss of death". In shipbuilding—and I listened to my noble friend Lord Shinwell as always—I remember a few months ago the Government getting into mortal trouble because people could not decide when a ship was a ship. Hybridity is a term with which I have been conversant ever since I tried to nationalise steel. The late Iain Macleod ran around telling everybody I was doing something hybrid.
This question of whether we can allow any manufacturing industry to stultify is at the very heart of the economic problems which we are all worried about. If, in particular, we look at the aircraft industry and aeronautics, in general, this is a rapidly expanding industry, one which almost weekly is doing new things which it did not conceive a month ago that it would have to do. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that while I do not want to see a lot of intrusion by nationalised industry into industries which are
200
doing a good job of work in the private sector, I do not want to see silly, wasteful competition with them. That would be stupid. But in this phase, in which, by common agreement, we must find a way to expand manufactures, it would be wrong to inhibit two industries such as these, especially the aircraft industry, from an expansion into fields of technology which are as yet almost unknown, by adding an Amendment which would cripple their efforts.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, but can he explain in what way this Amendment prevents diversification? It puts no control at all on these companies using their existing powers, under the memorandum and articles of association. All it requires is that, if they wish to go beyond their existing memorandum and articles of association, they have to come to Parliament as a new form of shareholders' meeting, just as at the moment, if they want to extend them, they have to have a general meeting to get authority to do so.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, let us be practical. Many of the great firms, especially in the engineering Industries with which I am conversant, are in existence today because they diversified. Many of them could not possibly have done that without years of experiment, and of improvisation; and I could not think of the time when some of those industries, if they were in the public sector, could go to the Minister and ask for permission, "Please may we do this?" With his experience of industry, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, knows as well as I that you start to diversify in one direction and finish up with something entirely different. My case is that, if we are to restrict them narrowly at a time when the nation requires a vast expansion, we will not permit them to take their place in a highly competitive world. Again I remind the House that we are discussing two industries both of which are in almost vicious competition, in a period where there is over-capacity in both industries. I am trying to think of how the American aerospace industry would have expanded as it has done if it had been inhibited in this way. I do not believe it could have expanded. For those reasons, I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to intervene to make two brief points. I was provoked by listening to the very interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. I should first like to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Carr. He is as familiar as I am with the fact that in Parliament we have two procedures on Resolutions, Negative and Affirmative—one where it lies on the Table on the order of the Minister and goes through unless both Houses of Parliament object to it, and one where both Houses must approve it. By constitutional practice we reserve the Affirmative Resolution procedure, which this Amendment proposes, for very weighty matters—matters of enormous departure from the small print of a Bill, where great exercise of discretion on the part of the Minister is involved. Is the noble Lord really saying, in the sort of situation that might arise under this clause of the Minister having power to go just beyond, as he said, the articles of association of a company, that he really believes that Parliament should be cluttered up by an Affirmative Resolution every time such a matter arises?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, it was not to go just beyond their present powers but to go into wholly different fields. if that were to happen, would the noble Lord still take the same view?—because at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, there is no restriction of any kind whatever. It is wide open.
Lord NORTHFIELD: The answer is, my Lords, to look at other Statutes and to see that in nationalisation Bills in the past we have never had any trouble over the use of the Minister's discretion, the power of the Board or the Negative procedure. We have never used, or thought it necessary to use, the Affirmative procedure in a case like this, and to have Parliament cluttered up with whole debates in both Houses on what might be relatively trivial matters of day-to-day commercial practice. If there is an awkward case which seems to be going too far, the noble Lord will use the Negative procedure and he can make all the fuss and bother about it that he wishes. Not to have the Affirmative procedure is not to leave the noble Lord defenceless. The Negative procedure could be used, and that is much more appropriate from a Parliamentary point of view. This is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
202
The second point refers to the more general principle which was raised by my noble friend Lord Vaizey. It partly answers my noble friend Lord Shinwell, to whom I listened with great respect. He asked what the possibilities were and what might such a nationalised shipbuilding body want to do that would not be covered by its articles of association. Of course, I do not know details of all those articles of association, but I can quite imagine that some of them would not allow the companies to go in for vertical integration, which might be very necessary. In other words, some shipbuilding authorities may need to join in partnerships, and that is covered under subsection (2) and covered also by the Amendment proposed. They may need to go into partnership in producing items needed in shipbuilding, various fittings for ships, and so on. I do not know what they would be, but there must be an immense variety involved. I have no guarantee here that, in pursuance of commercial policy in the future by such a nationalised body, they will already have in their articles of association the power to venture under subsection (2)—by agreement, let it be noted, and not by force—into partnership with other bodies. There is really no need to bind a Minister by subjecting him to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, or to bind the Boards.
The noble Lord spoke almost as though there was no protection at all for Parliament if anything went wrong. But of course there is. The matter could be raised in Parliament at any time by means of a substantive Motion, or a debate on Supply Day in another place, or by means of a Parliamentary Question. Anything that goes beyond the intention of the Bill would be raised immediately. This is putting in a sort of charade of control for occasions which will hardly ever arise and which are controlled by other means in the normal way of our constitutional practice, so I do not see the need for the Amendment or for the rather heavy handed machinery proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, warned us during the Report stage on Amendment No. 34 that he might wish to put down a similar Amendment on Third Reading, but that he felt he could not support Amendment

203
No. 34 which had been put down by noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. That Amendment would have required the Corporations to obtain the specific approval of both Houses of Parliament before taking shares in companies or participating in establishing new ones, whereas the Bill as drafted requires them to obtain the Secretary of State's approval. I resisted that Amendment on the grounds that it would impose an impossible restricttion on the Corporations' freedom of action and, most important, on the speed of their commercial response. This Amendment would restrict even more effectively the Corporations' ability to respond to rapidly-changing commercial situations and to make the most of suitable opportunities because it would require the specific approval of both Houses before the Corporations could undertake any new activities. Noble Lords opposite well know that to impose Parliamentary control in this way would entail delays which, in the context of commercial operations, could effectively prevent them.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I think, with respect, the noble Lord cannot be right in what he has just said, because these companies when vested will be able to undertake any new activities which are encompassed within their existing articles of association. I do not pretend to have studied all 43 of them, but such documents are usually drawn rather widely simply in order to give a company the power very broadly to be able to undertake new activities. So I really think they could undertake a great range of activities without this Amendment beginning to bite on them in any way.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord make that point in response to something which my noble friend Lord Lee said, and I was coming on to disagree with that and to tell him that my advice is quite contrary to what the noble Lord said. My advice is that it is not the case that companies will be able to undertake anything allowed under their articles of association, but that in fact the Amendment would prevent companies undertaking activities beyond those actually being carried out on vesting day, whether or not they are covered by the companies'
204
articles of association. That is my advice: it is perfectly clear, and I have a feeling that the noble Lord may have mistaken the effect his Amendment would have. I must tell him that my advice is quite clear on that point. Companies would not be allowed to go as wide as they would like, if their powers under their articles of association allowed them. They would be restricted to exactly what they are doing on vesting day, and no more.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, has argued that what my noble friend has called a "sledge hammer" is justified because the power conferred by Clause 3(1)(b) provides the Secretary of State with a means of bringing about what the noble Lord called on a previous occasion "back door nationalisation" of, for instance, the paper bag industry. By "back door nationalisation", I think the noble Lord has now admitted that he means voluntary acquisition. If I may say so, I find it strange that the last Conservative Government merely "rescued" Rolls-Royce, although when we allow a public corporation to take a shareholding in a company, without any compulsion and for blameless commercial reasons, that is called "back door nationalisation". Of course, the paper bag example which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, suggested was a respectable use of reductio ad absurdum as a method of proof, is indeed absurd.
As my noble friend pointed out, in the broad national interest we want to ensure that Corporations are able, with the commercial speed of response which noble Lords opposite have praised in other contexts, to extend their activities to related fields—related either to the product, to the technical skills, the know-how, the assets or other resources of the main business. I must say that I think it is unlikely and probably fair that I should make the point to your Lordships that the case of paper bags would fall into that category. But, as noble Lords opposite have frequently and quite properly reminded us, the aerospace industry is a resourceful, ingenious and inventive industry. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, it could not be in the national interest to prevent it from using its resources to create wealth for the nation. The need for the consent of the Secretary of State to protect existing United Kingdom manufacturers who might be affected, and to add to it the delay involved in

205
Parliamentary approval, would in many cases deprive the nationalised industry of the ability to act in the national interest.
As I said during the Report stage, this Amendment touches on the fundamental discussion we had at Second Reading. If they are to have any chance of commercial success public Corporations need scope to exploit market opportunities. At the same time, because of their role in the economy and their source of finance, they must be properly accountable. We believe that these objectives, which I accept and have accepted all along, may on occasions potentially be in conflict and are best achieved and the right balance struck between them by the arrangements in nationalised industries legislation by government of both parties. Clause 3(1)(b) follows broadly the similar provision in the Iron and Steel Act. These well precedented provisions combine ministerial control at the strategic level with accountability by Ministers and Parliament for their responsibility. We still firmly believe that this leaves the Corporation a reasonable degree of freedom while ensuring Parliamentary control. As I have said, I still feel that this Amendment would not be in the interests of the Corporations or of the country.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just said, although we may not all agree we can see that this is a case in which there would be considerable substance. The Government wish these new Corporations to have freedom to enter into related fields. That is a persuasive case, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, pointed out and as I have said, that is not what the Bill says. The Bill gives them entirely unlimited freedom, with the consent of the Minister, to enter into fields of activity wholly unrelated to the duties which they have been given in this Bill. If there was any qualification of that kind I can assure the noble Lord that we should not at this stage of the Bill be moving an Amendment to it. It is because there is no such limitation that we feel something must be introduced.
Of course, at this stage we are in a difficult position because if it is wrong at the moment there is no further stage at which to get our Amendment right.
206
If I may take a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Northfield and Lord Lee, I am not seeking by this Amendment to prevent these nationalised Corporations from showing normal commercial initiative or to shackle them more than any private company is shackled. However, I want to subject them to some measure of control. I repeat that if a private company wishes to go beyond the powers defined in its memorandum and articles of association it has to go through the somewhat tiresome but perfectly proper process of approaching its shareholders in annual general meeting and getting its powers extended. The purpose of this Amendment is to apply to a nationalised Corporation the discipline equivalent—no more and no less—to that to which a private Corporation is subject. It may be technically wrong—it is difficult for the Opposition not to get Amendments technically wrong—but the purpose of the Amendment is clear, to provide no more but no less discipline in going into wholly unrelated fields than is applied to a company in the private sector. I regard this as essential.
If the Government meant to give this freedom to enter into related fields they had a duty to make that clear in the Bill, and that duty they have not fulfilled. Even though this Amendment may not be perfect, it may be that when it comes back to us from another place that will give us an opportunity to put in a revised version which makes quite clear the purpose which I thought was clear but which I have to accept from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may not be quite what was intended. I do not believe that on this last occasion I can advise your Lordships to allow this Bill to go through without any restraint of any kind, for these Corporations to be given power to enter into any other activity, however unrelated it may be to the duties and purposes which this Bill seeks to give them in the first place. I must ask your Lordships to put this matter to the test of a Division.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151;Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L

Elibank, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Amory, V.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Exeter, M.

Norfolk, D.

Amulree, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northchurch, B.

Arran, E.

Ferrier, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Atholl, D.

Gage, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Gisborough, L.

Platt, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Banks, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Barnby L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Barrington, V.

Grey, E.

Robbins, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rochester, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hampton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

Sackville, L.

Blakenham, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bourne, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Brock, L.

Hertford, M.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Byers, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

Shinwell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kimberley, E.

Simon, V.

Chelwood, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Spens, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Suffield, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Cobham, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McNair, L.

Tranmire, L.

Craigavon, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

Vernon, L.

De Freyne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

De Ramsey, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Derwent, L.

Meston, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Devonshire, D.

Monck, V.

Westbury, L.

Drumalbyn, L

Monson, L.

Willingdon, M.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Effingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Maelor, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Melchett, L.

Blyton, L.

Hankey, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Northfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Pennell, L.

Champion, L.

Kagan, L.

Pargiter, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kennet, L.

Peddie, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Popplewell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Raglan, L.

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

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rhodes, L.

Fulton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gardiner, L.

McCluskey, L.

Rusholme, L

208

209

Russell, E.

Stone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Willis, L.

Slater, L.

Thurlow, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Snow, L.

Vaizey, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.6 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY Lord CARR of HADLEY moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for severance
.—(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is entitled to receive compensation under section 37 above in relation to the securities of a company (the "relevant company");and

(b) suffers special loss or damage or reasonably incurs expenses (not being taxes) as a direct result of the vesting of those securities in a Corporation.

(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be entitled to receive a payment (to be determined in like manner to the compensation payable to him) equal to the loss or damage or expenses referred to in subsection (1) above.
(3) Where the relevant company forms part of a larger undertaking, the payment referred to in subsection (2) above shall include a sum equivalent to the reasonable cost of re-arranging the affairs of that undertaking and a sum calculated by reference to any increase in the proportion of the overhead expenses of the undertaking to the volume of the business over which those expenses are spread, so far as that increase is due to the vesting of those securities and is not reasonably capable of being avoided or diminished.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter which we also raised on the Report stage of the Bill, and indeed, I think, on the Committee stage as well, and the only reason why we are returning to it now is that we said on Report stage on Friday last that we would consider the matter when we had received a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to a point which I raised following the giving to the House by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing of a concrete case to illustrate the question of severance costs, which is the subject of this Amendment. If I may briefly remind your Lordships, what we are seeking to achieve by this Amendment is the acceptance by the Government of the principle that where a holding company, in hiving off one of its subsidiary companies and vesting it in
210
either of the new Corporations, thereby incurs unavoidable costs, then the holding company should be entitled to have those unavoidable costs reimbursed. In many cases, the unavoidable costs may be so small as to be insignificant and un-measurable, in which case there is no practical significance in this Amendment. But we cannot be sure that that will be so, and many of the holding companies in industry fear that the costs of vesting some of their subsidiaries in the Corporations may be considerable. So equity demands that if the unavoidable costs are considerable, they should be entitled to have them reimbursed, because they will be costs which arise wholly and solely from carrying out Parliament's instructions which are contained in this Bill.
On Friday last, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing gave the example of a company called George Clark and NEM Limited which at the moment is in the Richard sons Westgarth group and will be vested in British Shipbuilders, and he drew attention to the costs of moving their head office and things of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, kindly acceded to my request to let me have a letter from him dealing with the concrete example given by my noble friend, and he got that reply to me very quickly—indeed, before close of play on Friday. One thing I cannot complain about is the expedition with which that reply was sent to me.
However, I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that I do complain about the substance of it. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in the letter was that whatever agreement is in existence between George Clark and NEM Limited and Richardsons Westgarth for the leasing of the land on which Richardsons Westgarth's head office is situated, it will be unaffected by nationalisation. That is all very well at first blush. I suggest to your Lordships that even if that were to be satisfactory in the short run, the continuation of that position would not be satisfactory to either party in the long run; it would be no more satisfactory to the nationalised Corporation than it would be to

211
Richardsons Westgarth without its firm George Clark & NEM Limited as a subsidiary.
The reasons why it would not be satisfactory are really quite simple, because the letter entirely ignores the physical problems of security and access which are involved on a site owned by one company where there will have to be staff, and all the other facilities then belonging to a totally different company, going in and out. Although it would be satisfactory to both sides temporarily, I cannot believe that your Lordships would think that that sort of position would be satisfactory as a permanent arrangement, either to the nationalised Corporation or to Richardsons Westgarth. One really cannot mix staff from different companies on the same site.
At present, there are common services—telephones, telex, security, catering, printing and various other communications arrangements. Once the head office which serves the whole group of Richardsons Westgarth no longer has this particular subsidiary company, George Clark & NEM Limited, once the connection is broken and that company belongs to the nationalised Corporation, I do not believe those mixed services of security, communications, catering and all the rest of them will be satisfactory any longer on a permanent basis. I repeat, they may be tolerable from the point of view of industry on a temporary basis, but I do not believe that either side would wish the situation to continue on a permanent basis.
There is only one solution. Richardsons Westgarth will have to go and find another office in another location. They will be bound to incur expense, although it may not be immediate, and this will be wholly and solely the consequence of this split. The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, does not even mention, let alone deal with satisfactorily, the problems of occupation of a mixed site to which I have just been referring and which anyone with any experience of industry knows to be very real problems and not by any means theoretical or mythical.
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, does not deal at all with the other main category of severance costs in this matter which I mentioned. The
212
noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, told us, if I remember aright, that once the subsidiary companies in Richardsons Westgarth are vested in the Corporation their group's turnover will be reduced by something like 30 per cent.—about a third of their overall turnover. When they have only two-thirds of their existing turnover to control from their head office, clearly they will require a smaller head office staff. However reluctantly, they will have to reduce the size of their present head office staff wholly and solely because they will have been compelled by this Act of Parliament to vest some of their present activities in the Corporation.
My Lords, as I said last Friday, even if only the minimum legal requirements are complied with in dealing with a reduction in staff, redundancy is an expensive matter. If, as most substantial, responsible and good employers nowadays do, they wish to deal with their staff somewhat more generously than according to the minimum requirements laid down by law, it will be a very expensive matter. It will be a significant expense, inevitably and irretrievably placed on Richardsons Westgarth, wholly and solely as a result of this Act of Parliament compelling them to vest some of their subsidiaries in the new Corporation.
I feel that the Government cannot have thought about this matter properly, because I cannot believe that if they had done so they would be denying the equity of the case that we are making in this Amendment. We have raised this matter on previous occasions. Let me repeat, there may be a number of these companies which are to be vested where expenses of this sort will not arise. In those cases, the Government will be fully protected because our Amendment gives this power to the Secretary of State; he will have complete control and will be able to knock on the head any vexatious or irresponsible claims. Where there is a genuinely substantiated claim of a company's being enforced, directly as a result of vesting, to incur expenses which it cannot avoid, surely it is the duty of Parliament, in equity, to give the Secretary of State the power and the means to reimburse those costs—the costs, and no more than the costs—irretrievably and unavoidably incurred as a direct result of complying with legal duties imposed by this Bill. That is why we felt it necessary

213
to return to this matter on Third Reading, although we have raised it before both on Committee and certainly on Report stage, and it is why I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously.
A great deal has been said, al most entirely outside your Lordships' House, about our exceeding the proper spirit of our duties. I strongly submit to the Government that this sort of Amendment cannot possibly come into that category. I cannot believe that another place would not have included this provision if it had had the time and had given attention to this matter. One cannot give the time and attention to everything in the Bill, however long-winded; but this point has come to our notice and now that it has been brought forward it is surely no part of the Labour Party's mandate, put into its Manifesto, to deny equitable reimbursement of costs which its legislation forces on citizens of this country, whether corporate or private. I beg to move.
4.17 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I rise in sadness, which I shall explain later, but before I do so I had better declare once again an interest in this particular issue. I have 200 shares as a non-executive director of Richardsons Westgarth. You cannot declare an interest too often if you were a member of the standing Royal Commission looking into the standards of public life. That is why I repeat what I have already said on six occasions while discussing this Bill. My Lords, why I am sad is that this matter started two years ago. It was December, 1974, when the chairman and chief executive of the group went to see officials at the Department of Industry and explained what was going to happen if the largest of all of these subsidiaries, responsible for between one half and one third of the total group turnover, were nationalised. There was another meeting a year later, in October 1975, again with the Department officials. In that case, representatives of the SRNA were also present. When the meeting broke up, the Departmental officials said that they would reconsider the matter in the light of the representations made. I regret to say that when the Bill came out there was absolutely no consideration of the costs which were going to be incurred as a result of nationalisation.
214
Here we have this small group headquarters with 30 people, on a huge site. I imagine that the group headquarters might cover an acre, and the site might cover 600 acres. It is solemnly suggested that, surrounded by a publicly owned company of considerable dimensions, a tiny private enterprise island should be left—incidentally, administering subsidiary companies all over England, right the way down South to Kent, to the Midlands, to Manchester, to Scotland, to the North of Scotland and all over the place, from this tiny site where many of the services will be controlled, as my noble friend has rightly said, by the nationalised industry.
The central services at a group headquarters—and this is why I think that some compensation is thoroughly deserved—cover all these aspects: engineering development, metallurgy, industrial relations, accounting, salaries, pensions, insurance for all the group companies (that is to say, of the buildings and everything else), printing, catering, and above all, bulk purchasing. Therefore when you hive off up to half of a company, you negotiate for steel—our biggest raw material in engineering—on less good terms. You will suffer as a result of negotiating for a much smaller buy than hitherto. All of those services which can be supplied to the group now have to be fragmented. Some services will have to be retained for this marine engine builder, which is the biggest marine engine builder in the whole of the United Kingdom. So there must be a case for a small amount of compensation; it does not amount to billions. However, there is disruption and disorganisation and costs, which become inevitable.
Despite the representations which have been made over two years, I was sad to read in the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, sent us so very promptly, that none of those messages seems to have got through to the governing Party and to the noble Lord, because he says:
"This agreement"—
this is the agreement to rent to us a small piece of land in the middle of a big area—
"will result in no disruption and hence no severance".
What does the noble Lord mean when he says that there will be no disruption? For the reasons my noble friend and I

215
have explained, there will be acute disruption. To start with, we shall have to get rid of half of the staff. Most of the staff, because they are senior, are very expensive to compensate and we hope to compensate them generously. The noble Lord continues:
"The agreement will be unaffected by nationalisation".
One despairs, after two years, that the noble Lord should say that the agreement will be unaffected by nationalisation. We have been back to the officials to explain the position, we explained it at the Report stage and we are explaining it again at Third Reading, yet we are told that the agreement will be unaffected by nationalisation. Is it true to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says:
"If subsequently Richardson Westgarth wish to purchase the freehold of the land in question from George Clark"—
that is, the freehold of a one-acre site in the middle of some 600 acres—
"this will be a matter for their own commercial judgment and for negotiation"?
I am saying that it is not possible to have 30 people on a small island site in the middle of this huge public sector undertaking.
Therefore I ask the noble Lord to look again at the matter and to considerwhether we have made out a case that this is one of the factors which should be taken into account. The Government have repeated again and again that they want to be fair. At no great cost to the public sector, this is an opportunity for the Government to be fair. If we are not compensated with a reasonable return, then the economic viability of the remainder of the group and, therefore, employment, much of which is in development areas, will thereby be at greater risk. For every reason—for fairness, for the future of employment and for the economic viability of an important engineering enterprise—I ask the Government to consider whether the case that my noble friend and I have made is fair, just and worthy of attention.
4.24 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as both noble Lords who have spoken have made clear, this is a subject which we have been over at some length on previous occasions. When we had previous debates I tried to make it clear that in the view of the
216
Government there are a number of factors which bear on the question of severance. Under the Bill, complete companies are taken over as going concerns, but where we are dealing with a group company structure, which is the case with most of the companies covered by the Bill, the distinction between the various companies within a group can become blurred. As I said at Report stage, this usually arises for historic reasons and can give rise to a situation where the owner and user are, on occasions, different people. For example, on Report I suggested that it was possible that the head office of a vesting company might be owned by its parent company, even though it was occupied solely by the vesting company. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also made reference to industrial and intellectual property and to the problems which would arise on severance in that case. I was able to write to the noble Lord and, judging by his absence on this occasion, I hope I was able to satisfy him about the doubts which he had on the severance points.
Clause 22, together with Schedule 3, have been included in the Bill in order to mitigate, if not eliminate, the problems of severance when a company is taken out of its group structure. The clause allows for "appurtenant" assets, identified by agreement, with recourse to arbitration, to be vested in the scheduled company at the date of transfer. In this connection "appurtenant" means directly relevant to the undertaking of the acquired company. The compensation for the securities of the vesting company where such assets are transferred is calculated on the basis that the assets so transferred were part of the vesting company during the reference period. As I explained in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, Clause 22 applies in exactly the same way to industrial and intellectual property.
Another factor relevant to severance is the basis of valuation of unquoted securities. Unquoted securities are valued under the Bill as if they are quoted. But unquoted securities are almost always worth less than the equivalent quoted securities. Therefore, by valuing unquoted securities as if they were quoted there is a direct benefit to the shareholders. In addition, the valuation process will also assume, by virtue of treating securities

217
as if they were quoted, that the company was not a subsidiary. This also, as I suggested during the Report stage, reduces the effects of severance.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, have returned to the particular question of Richardson Westgarth's head office. I am sorry that although my letter was prompt it does not appear to have satisfied either noble Lord about the particular case which they raised. During the Report stage I expressed my reservations about commenting on a particular case, particularly where, as I freely acknowledged, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is in possession of all the facts and I, from my personal experience, am in possession of none. In those circumstances, it would be foolish in the extreme—and I hope more foolish than I am—to embark on a detailed discussion of a particular case with the noble Lord. The noble Lord knows the site. I do not; I have never been there. However, I am advised that in other circumstances, both in general and in particular cases relevant to the Bill, companies have quite happily occupied offices on sites which are surrounded by or are next to larger sites owned by other people. For example, Cammell Laird and Western Shiprepairers exist side by side. The former even uses the latter's facilities. John Brown share a site with Maritime Shipbuilders (U.K.) Limited—again, as I understand it, without any problems arising. Indeed, John Brown has built engines in the Clydeside shipyard owned by Maritime since 1967. There are many examples of the joint use of office facilities—for example, where offices are leased by local authorities.
As I say, I am deliberately trying to keep my remarks fairly general because I do not know the particular problems which arise on this site. However, with respect to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about the case, I would suggest that it is possible, at least in other cases, for people to continue to operate in this way without disruption. In any event, as I said in my letter to the noble Lord which he has quoted, the future of the particular site will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the company concerned.
The Government have listened very carefully to the points made by noble
218
Lords on the now three occasions on which we have discussed the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has reminded us, it is a discussion which has been going on, in one way or another, for a very long time. I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, anybody can say that it is not something which has been very carefully considered by both sides. Of necessity that has been the case, because my advisers have had discussions with the noble Lord and his company and on three occasions they have had to produce information for me to reply to a debate on the subject in this House. But the Government remain of the view that because of the existing provisions of the Bill the problems of severance which have been raised by noble Lords opposite will be significantly reduced, if not entirely eliminated. The vesting of the scheduled companies will be achieved, as I said at the Report stage, with the minimum of disruption to former parents and fellow subsidiaries and compensation will be determined fairly in relation to the situation of each company. I am sorry that I have not been able to satisfy noble Lords opposite with my letter, but I can assure them that this problem has been given very careful consideration and the Government remain of the view that we have taken throughout the passage of the Bill and I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he can explain to your Lordships' House what harm would be done by the acceptance of this Amendment, the sole object of which is to prevent inequity, even slight inequity, in certain cases? The noble Lord's reply to the debate which has taken place so far is largely orientated on a mass of detail which has been adduced, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, but it seems to me that in dealing with that matter he has, so to speak, lost the wood for the trees. Here is an Amendment which so far as I can see can do no harm to the Government, save in so far as the Government regard it as being a harmful action to redress an inequity. It seems to me that the onus of proof that this Amendment should be rejected must rest on something much more substantial than the noble Lord has so far adduced.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is certainly not, of course it is not, the Government's view that it would be a harmful action to redress an inequity. The Government's case, which I have put consistently throughout the several times that we have discussed this issue, is that because of the provisions already in the Bill there is not an inequity to be redressed.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean because of the provisions which have been inserted in the Bill or because of the conditions which were already there?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I said that I had taken the same line since the Committee stage so I should have thought it was obvious to the noble Lord that I am addressing my remarks to the Bill as it came to your Lordships' House.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I must say to your Lordships that, although no doubt this matter is caviare to the general, thousands of people are not likely to surge up and down Whitehall because of injustices committed by this Bill, I personally, not having taken part in any discussion on the pros and cons of nationalisation (although I have my own view), would blush to explain to any foreign financial expert the proposed fundamental basis of compensation. I am quite sure that any such expert would say that this is a partial expropriation of assets. I must add that in my opinion these matters are not concealed from the small number of people who pay attention to them and it so happens, unfortunately for this country, that that small number of people includes a great many of those on whose good will we shall depend in the months to come.
4.35 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, one is not just disappointed by the sort of reply we have had from the Government on this Amendment; one is exasperated by it. No wonder there is growing up in this country an ever increasing gap between the "we" and "they"; between citizens who are governed and those who govern. No wonder there is a growing revolt against bureaucracy—because that is what this is: this is bureaucracy. This
220
has nothing to do—at least I hope it has nothing to do—with the genuine doctrines of belief of the Socialist Party. I really think this is petty-minded bureaucracy and nothing else, and the Government should be ashamed of it.
There is only one basis on which they need not be ashamed of it and that is if the noble Lord can answer the following question in the affirmative. I do not believe he can because, although my recollection may be wrong, I believe I put it to him in somewhat similar words way back in the Committee stage. During the Committee stage debate, if I remember correctly—and I am depending entirely upon memory because I have not read it for some days—I interrupted him at one point, or it may have been in my speech of reply at the end of the debate on Committee stage, and I think that something he had said encouraged me to believe that the basis of calculating compensation would in fact take account of costs of this kind. If I remember that correctly, I think I also remember correctly that he interrupted me to say that he was afraid he had to tell me that that was not the case; in other words, the calculation of the compensation under the terms of the Bill did not allow for taking account of costs of this kind.
Whether or not my memory is exact on that matter, may I now frame the question which I believe I then asked in rather more precise terms. Is the noble Lord saying that because Richardsons Westgarth have this particular circumstance of their head office being on an "island" in the middle of a site which is about to be nationalised and they have these other expenses which have been mentioned, this will be taken into account in working out the notional unquoted value and will end in an addition to the calculation of that unquoted share value as compared with another company which is not so encumbered? If the method of calculating the notional share value is such as to take account of the special circumstances, then I agree that the Government have not just a bureaucratic answer but they have a genuine and fair answer. If my recollection of what the noble Lord said before was wrong, and if he could now, with the leave of the House, give an answer which was positive on the point I have mentioned—namely,

221
that these circumstances are particular factors which come into the calculation of the notional share value and increase that notional share value by being taken into account—then I would accept that this Amendment is not necessary. But unless the Government can give an affirmative reply to that question then I believe this Amendment is necessary in the name of
equity and I ask your Lordships to pass it in a Division.
4.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154;Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Aldenham, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Allerton, L.

Ely, Bp.

Morris, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mottistone, L,

Ampthill, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Arran, E.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

George-Brown, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Neil of the Maine, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Gray, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Reay, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, B.

Roberthall, L.

Blakenham, V.

Hampton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Hankey, L.

Rochester, L.

Boothby, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sackville, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller]

Brock, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hayter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Byers, L.

Hertford, M.

Sandford, L.

Caccia, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Camoys, L.

Hunt, L.

Seear, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selkirk, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Simon, V.

Carrington, L.

Kimberley, E.

Spens, L.

Chelwood L.

Kings Norton, L.

Stamp, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tenby, V

Clwyd, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Cobham, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Coleraine, L

Lothian, M.

Thurlow, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lye11, L.

Tranmire, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McNair, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Daventry, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Devonshire, D.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dudley, E.

Melville, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wardington, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Wolverton, L.

Elibank, L.

Meston, L.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

Middleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Rhodes, L.

Blyton, L.

Kagan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Kaldor, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Vaizey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Northfield, L.

Wall, L.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Walston, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L.

Williamson, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Willis, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Henderson, L

Ponsonby of Shullbrede, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 40 [Base value of oilier securities]:
4.48 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 54, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 25 and insert ("the arbitration tribunal, in determining the base value of the company's securities in accordance with subsection (1) above, may have regard to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. When we discussed this on Report last week the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replied in terms which seemed to meet our arguments, and therefore we were very surprised when the Government did not accept the Amendment. So we decided to table it again, because we felt that, even though the interval between Report stage and Third Reading has been very short, the Government might well see that the Amendment completely meets what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, himself said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will forgive me for interrupting him, he used an epithet with regard to what I said. Although there is not a great disance between the noble Lord and myself, I did not quite hear the epithet he used.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I said that when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, replied, he seemed to meet our arguments, and that we were surprised that the Government did not then accept the Amendment. Therefore, we have tabled the Amendment again, because we thought that with the passage of time the Government might see how closely the remarks of the noble Lord were to the Amendment we had tabled.
My Lords, the Amendment would make the parent company quotation a permissive rather than an obligatory relevant factor. We are discussing the calculation of the notional quoted price, not unquoted securities. I will not go into the whole question of the basis of compensation, but simply wish to return to the point that in that calculation the Government, in the wording of the Bill, are making as a relevant factor (and making it obligatory to take it into account) the notional quoted price of unquoted securities, the parent company's quotation.
Lord Winterbottom last week sought to assure the House that the provision in Clause 40 merely ensures that the quotation of a parent company is not excluded from the considerations when it is strictly relevant and will apply only where the activities of the acquired company are clearly a major factor in determining the quotation of the parent company. I think I have summarised accurately what he said.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, clearly if Lord Winterbottom were himself to be appointed a member of the Arbitration Tribunal we should all be happy and his assurances would no doubt be carried through in the way the Bill, when enacted, would be interpreted by the Tribunal, and the basis of his assurances would be exactly what the Amendment is designed to achieve. So far as I know, however, Lord Winterbottom unfortunately will not be on the Tribunal and the strict interpretation of the Bill does not accord with the generous assurances he gave us last week. The words in the Bill, "shall have regard to", do not specify the degree of regard which the arbitrator should have for the parent company quotation. However, they require the Tribunal to have regard to it and not to ignore it, even where it would be totally irrelevant and misleading as a factor. We are proposing that the word, "may" should replace the word, "shall", a proposition which has been heard before on other occasions in your Lordships' House and will no doubt be heard again.
Another reason for tabling the Amendment and renewing the debate is that I did not fail to notice that later during the Report stage on another Amendment Lord Winterbottom stated that specific factors should not be mentioned in the Bill because their relevance would then be given undue prominence. However, the way the Bill is now worded in Clause 40, because it mentions this specific factor, therefore gives undue prominence to it, and that was one of the arguments we used. We feel that, having said this when referring to another part of the Bill and having given us what we thought were such excellent assurances last week, the Government should be able to accept the Amendment now because it closely follows what Lord Winterbottom said and much more accurately translates what apparently is the intention of the Government.
4.54 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, for a moment I doubted the value of this third time around, as it were, but, having considered the discussion once again on this matter, the intention behind the Amendment becomes much clearer;
226
perhaps I was a bit dim-witted or perhaps it was due to the lateness of the hour. It has now become crystal clear what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, wishes to achieve, and I suppose that this is the virtue of conciseness. What we are arguing is "may" versus "shall" and "permissive" versus "obligatory" and this is an extremely useful clarification which the people who have to implement the Bill when it becomes law can grasp.
We are dealing with something extremely difficult. We are giving, as it were, a general interpretation which will have to be used by the stockholders' representatives and subsequently by the Tribunal. The noble Lord is rightly trying to make our intentions as clear as possible and I, from this side, have been trying to explain as clearly as I can what those intentions are. There is this problem of undue stress on certain elements which must be taken into account, but I will leave that on one side for the moment and tackle the first point, which is "may" versus "shall".
Clause 40(6) provides that where a vesting company represents a substantial proportion or a quoted parent, the share quotation of that parent shall be one of the relevant factors. That is clear enough; it is one. The important point is that it is only one of the relevant factors. The fundamental requirement is that the Tribunal shall have regard to all relevant factors in determining the notional share quotation of an unlisted company. The inclusion of Clause 40(6) does not detract from this generality but merely ensures that one more obvious factor, namely the quote of a parent, is not excluded from the considerations. This strikes me as drawing the field of choice very wide indeed.
Clause 49(6) has a strictly limited application. As I have previously made clear, it applies only where an acquired company represents a substantial part of a quoted group. "Substantial" is not defined—I seem to remember our discussion about industrial democracy, which we found rather difficult to define—but I can assure noble Lords that Clause 40(6) will apply only where the activities of the acquired company are clearly a major contributory factor to the quotation of the parent. As the Tribunal is of a judicial nature, it will be able to weigh words like

227
"clearly" better than I in this House can. It is certainly not designed to apply where the activities of the acquired company are a minorproportion of the activities of the parent.
It is also clearly stated in Clause 40(6) that the parent company's quotation is only one of the relevant factors. As we have made clear, it is not the overriding factor; all factors which are of relevance to the valuation of an acquired company will be considered in the valuation process. It will be for the Tribunal to decide what is the significance of the parent company quotation in any particular case depending on how substantial a part of the quoted group an acquired company is. This assurance has been given quite categorically on a number of occasions and I would not wish noble Lords to be under any misapprehension about it. The Tribunal has very wide powers of discretion and it would be quite wrong to limit the application of Clause 40, as the Amendment seeks to do. The Amendment could lead to the anomalous situation of the Arbitration Tribunal deciding not to consider a parent's quotation where all common sense said that it was an important factor. Clause 40(6) as drafted can be applied in negotiations in the way most appropriate to the circumstance of a particular company.
The Amendment would reduce the clarity of the provision and hence increase uncertainty. Such uncertainty could be detrimental to either party in the negotiations. I feel that this is, on my side, a distillation of the argument we had before. We are not tying the Tribunal hand and foot. There a number of factors that must be taken into consideration. For these reasons, I feel that the Bill as drafted is superior to the Bill as it would be amended in the way the noble Lord proposes and I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to say again very much what he said on Report, which is virtually what the Amendment would say if it were in the Bill. When he says that the parent company's quotation will be taken into account only when it is clearly relevant, may I ask if he is aware that that is belied
228
by the word "shall" in subsection (6) because it says that it is one of the relevant factors to which the Arbitration Tribunal "shall have regard", which means that for a factor which might be completely irrelevant, the Tribunal is obliged to take it into account. That is why I cannot see that the noble Lord's reply in any way conforms with the wording of the Bill.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, they must take it into account but they can reject it if they wish.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, that makes it very complicated for the tribunal when reading the Bill. To ask them to take something into account and reject it as irrelevant if they wish to do so seems strange. The wording of the Bill says first that it is relevant and then that it shall be taken into account. The noble Lord is saying that it may in fact be irrelevant and can then be rejected, having been taken into account. I think that it will be exceedingly difficult for the tribunal to translate this part of the Bill in that kind of way even if they have read the noble Lord's words in this debate.
The assurances that the noble Lord has given are of course common sense and that is the way in which we think the Bill is intended to be operated. However, the fact that the noble Lord cannot accept our Amendment makes us wonder whether there is some other concealed reason. The noble Lord has not indicated that there is anything defective in our drafting. It is an extraordinary situation that the noble Lord seems to be rejecting the Amendment. I see that he is receiving some advice. I hope that, if I go on speaking for another moment or two, he will have received discretion to accept the Amendment. What he has been saying is a virtual acceptance of the Amendment, which makes it exceedingly difficult for us because we are in agreement on how the Bill should be operated, but the Bill, as it stands, is saying something quite different. I will gladly give way to the noble Lord if he has more to add as a result of the message which he has just received.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, it was just a friendly note.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am disappointed. Naturally, I

229
feel very tempted to press this Amendment because it is simply putting into the Bill what the Government have already said, but I feel that that is not an operation we ought to resort to. The noble Lord has twice given assurances. What we cannot understand is why he could not accept the writing of those assurances into the Bill as we have put them down in the Amendment. However, the noble Lord has repeated what he said before which is, virtually, that our Amendment is right in that it indicates the correct way in which the Bill is to be interpreted but that it is not necessary. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Stockholders' representatives]:
5.4 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 60, line 19, leave out ("company whose securities") and insert ("class of securities which").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5, these two Amendments being linked together. The Amendments are also repeats from earlier stages of the Bill because, on Report, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and I had not succeeded in getting our point across to the Government Front Bench. I do not know whether any of the companies that are to be vested has more than one class of share. I have not inquired into that because it seems to me irrelevant. If all the companies that are to be vested have only one class of share, the Amendment will of course be pretty meaningless, but if by any chance one of the companies has more than one class of share it seems right that there should be a separate shareholders' representative for the different classes of share, for, as I suggested when we discussed this matter before, the interests of different classes of shareholder might be different. The interests of the preference and equity shareholders might be different when valuation is taking place. For that reason, I thought it desirable that each class of share should be entitled to have its own shareholders' representative.
I recognise that this may, in what I suspect will be a very small number of cases, add a little complication, but it seems to me a very small matter to add this complication in return for getting absolute fairness as between the different classes of shareholder. I hope that the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us a little more explanation as to why the Government think that this is not necessary. I beg to move.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should like to support these two Amendments. They are, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, a re-run of those moved on the two previous occasions. They are so because I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom—for whom I have a high regard—did almost a video tape re-run of his previous two speeches. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, we did not really get an answer. In fact, I should like to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that, using his analogy of elephants again, he threshed a bit deeper into the elephant pit. He said,
"In preparing a negotiating machine, it is clear that one unit—namely, a company—must be represented by one stockholders' representative."—[Official Report, 5/11/76; col. 1673.]
The mud was getting a bit deep underneath the elephant, I suggest, because the stockholders' representative of course represents not a company but the holders of stock. This was the point. The noble Lord therefore muddied the waters even further.
It is absolutely clear to me, though I am afraid it is not so to the noble Lord, that each class of stockholder has a different interest. One could hold as many meetings of different classes of stockholder as one liked but that would not do the stockholders much good if, at the end of the day, they had only one person to represent them. The real issue is not having a meeting between the stockholders' representative and the stockholders, but is what the stockholders' representative does when he speaks to the Secretary of State. Therefore, we can go on as long as we like in this way but we shall not get any further—in fact, we shall get further away from the point.
Finally, there is another matter. The Government are asking the stockholders' representative to do something that is

231
totally unethical. He will have to put different interests of the stockholders one before another. Another point here is that if it is a question of saving time one could have one meeting with all the different people speaking for the different classes of stockholder, rather than a whole set of different meetings of stockholders. If all these people met at a single meeting, the matter could be threshed out at one go. That would not only be quicker but it would be fairer. We have been through this. I am sorry to weary the House and the noble Lord with these arguments, but I feel that we have not had an answer on this matter and I hope that this time we may get an answer to these points.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I can help the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, one of the arguments that we heard before is that because there was the possibility of so many different representatives being appointed the process of reaching agreement would be tedious and wearisome. But I would put it to the noble Lord that where the interests of the different shareholders are identical or similar there would be nothing to prevent the different classes of shareholder from each appointing the same representative. Where it was not practicable, feasible or desirable to do so, clearly, the same representative ought not to be appointed. I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accepting the Amendment.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, just to show that this is not going to be a video tape, I put my brief on one side and I shall say what I think. I cannot find this as complicated an issue as some we have already discussed. I am putting myself into the role of the stockholders' representative. I am told that there will be approximately 10 stockholders' representatives representing some 43 companies. I understand that that is the state of play at the moment. The names of one or two of these stockholders' representatives—
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has made this particular point again, and I am sure that he wishes to correct himself. He refers to 10 stockholders' representatives representing each of the 43 companies. It is his point about representing the companies with which I am concerned.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should say representing the stockholders of those companies. This may not be firm because, after all, we are in the process of legislating and this position will change. But when I was getting myself briefed on this subject—the matter was not included in the brief which I have now thrown away—I understood that the general feeling is that there will be about 10 eminent men representing the interests of the stockholders of 43 companies with many different classes of share and so on. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, put his finger on this point. He said that a stockholders' representative might represent a number of different interests. He is quite right; that is what will happen.
However, let us say that a stockholders' representative is to represent the interests of the stockholders of three different companies. Those three different companies, part of which will remain in the private sector and part of which will be brought into the public sector, will all be governed by articles of association. It is quite clear to me that the first job of the stockholders' representative will be to call a general meeting of all the stockholders of each separate company which he is representing, and then with the articles of association in his hand the company will have to clear its mind as to how the actual stock that it receives from the Government as compensation is divided between the various groupings within that company. Let us say that there is an ordinary stock, a first preference and a second preference, each with different defined rights. It is quite clear to me that the actual negotiation as to how the interests of these three groups within one company are satisfied must lie in a general meeting of that company at which the stockholders' representative threshes out the interests of the three groupings within the company. They are all of one company, to use the naval phrase, and therefore they will have to settle their own division of the "loot" on the basis of the articles of association.
That is how I see it. I am speaking only as a man who has worked and lived in this world, and I see how this happens. Having said that, I think that it would be foolish to split one company down the middle by appointing two different stock-holders' representatives. It would be

233
divisive and damaging, and would cause delay. This is the simple, practical problem we are facing. I do not think that it is a question of high policy; it is a question of simple practicalities. This is how the stockholders' representative will have to work to represent the stockholders of the companies and of the various types of stock within those companies.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will not try to entice me into the Lobby on this matter because I will not go. I am fully in agreement with the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for what he said. First, there appeared to be a reference which was quite outside what I was arguing; that is, that there were 10 distinguished gentlemen who were to represent stockholders in 43 companies. I have no objection at all to that. Of course, a distinguished gentleman, probably an accountant or someone similar, is quite capable of representing stockholders in different companies. What we are concerned about is that the same distinguished gentleman should have the task of representing, say, both the equity shareholders and the preference shareholders in one company, because their interests in what the noble Lord elegantly called the "division of the loot" might be different. I think that this would put this distinguished accountant in a very difficult position.
Of course the matter has to be threshed out. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has opened the door or the window very much wider than I expected it to be opened. I thought that the compensation was based on the Stock Exchange valuation of the equity shares, but it is also based on the notional Stock Exchange value of preference shares and other shares? Perhaps it is. That, I must say, I had not conceived; but if that is so, then I should have thought that it would be all the more necessary for a different qualified accountant to represent the two sets of shareholders.
I strongly suspect that when we come down to the facts of the case it will be found that a wholly owned subsidiary of a large corporation such as we are talking
234
about has in fact only one shareholder anyway; namely, the corporation which owns it, and it probably owns the preference shares as well, in which case there is nothing to worry about. But if there are cases where there are outside shareholders, perhaps minority shareholders with different classes of shares, it still seems to me that it would be wise to have two separate representatives. I fail to see what is the objection to that. I do not think that it would add anything to the time involved because, as the noble Lord says, it will probably be necessary to have a general meeting of all the shareholders. But when it comes to deciding how to divide the amount available, then the individual groups of shareholders will want to meet separately. In all the circumstances I do not think it is worth taking a Division on this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord has hoisted in what we have said, and perhaps when the time comes it will be possible for any minority shareholders to get separate representation in front of the tribunal. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Furnishing of information the Secretary of State]:
5.16 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY Lord CARR of HADLEY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 71, line 43, at end insert—
("(4A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a requirement is imposed on a person under this section and that person has refused or failed to comply with the requirement, the Court on the application of the Secretary of State may make such Order or Orders requiring compliance by that person with the requirement as the Court thinks just and reasonable for the purposes of this act.
For the purposes of this subsection "the Court" means the High Court in England or Northern Ireland or the Court of Session in Scotland, as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. It will be to the convenience of your Lordships to include in our discussion the next Amendment, No. 7, which I understand is wholly consequential upon the one I am now moving. I can deal with this matter very briefly. We have raised this point previously. It is a matter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey,

235
replied on the last day of the consideration of the Bill, last Friday. On that occasion I said that what the noble and learned Lord had said seemed to make some sense to me as a layman, but that as a layman I must consult others and form an opinion about what he had said. I am sorry to bother your Lordships again with the matter, and I am doing so only because when I had those consultations I am afraid that I satisfied myself that what the noble and learned Lord had said was not satisfactory and did not really meet the point which is of concern to the companies involved.
The concern, as I made clear last Friday, is about the level of the court to which these matters can be taken. Of course we accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord, that as the Bill at present stands anyone prosecuted under its disclosure provisions will have an appeal from the magistrates' court to a higher court. But we believe that the magistrates' court is not a satisfactory place at which to start. Not being a lawyer, I had hoped that what the noble and learned Lord was saying in debate last Friday meant that if one found oneself called to the magistrates' court one could then choose to go to the higher court if one wished, but I am advised most definitely that that is not the case and that one would have to go through all the proceedings in the magistrates' court and then use one's right of appeal in order to get to a higher court. In our view this is not satisfactory—and for two reasons.
First, we believe that the magistrates' court is not equipped naturally to sift through complex commercial evidence of the kind which will have to be considered here, and the requirement imposed on the court to determine what is reasonable for the Secretary of State to demand and what consitutes a reasonable excuse for failure is not in the normal line of work of magistrates' courts. Those courts are simply not experienced in that kind of matter and are not equipped to form such judgments. They will therefore be unfamiliar with the Bill, unable to call on precedent and not equipped by their experience in related fields, and they are therefore likely to produce rulings which will lead to appeal.
The second reason why we were not satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's
236
reply stems directly from that. It surely is in everyone's interest—in the interests of the Government, of the Corporation and of the parties affected—that if a particular piece of evidence is to be produced an order requiring its production should be made as quickly as possible. Reasonable speed really is in the interests of all parties: not just of the complainant or of the Secretary of State, but also in the interests of the Corporation and of the firm involved. It therefore seems to us important that, to get that speed and to ensure the smooth progress of compensation negotiations, any court cases should go straight to the court most likely (not only most likely, but properly equipped) to be able to deal with this sort of question, and should not first of all have to go to a magistrates' court and then have to be interrupted, with further delay caused by the process of going to the High Court.
I do not think the Government disputed the argument that the magistrates' court was not really the right court for this sort of determination. Their argument, as I understood it, was merely that there was an appeal from it. In the end, of course, that appeal provides the firm with the right to have the matter heard in the higher court: but why, we ask, cause this extra possible layer of legal process? I think it is well established and well known by lawyers and laymen that magistrates' courts are not the appropriate, natural courts for dealing with commercial arguments of this kind, so why run the risk of having to go through the two processes when, if there is any serious dispute, it will certainly end up in the higher court? Why, for goodness sake, not let it go there straight away?
Here, again, surely, there really is no Party political issue at stake in this House; there really is no question of the other place having thought about this and having taken a decision in principle about it. I think that this is the sort of matter which your Lordships' House is well equipped to consider at a reasonable and dispassionate level; and if there is no harm in the Amendment, why on earth—perhaps I am getting too depressed in advance, but I was going to ask why on earth the Government cannot accept it. It seems to us—and it has struck us particularly today—that the Government have come to look at these matters almost searching

237
for reasons why they have to say "No", rather than trying to say "Yes". I appeal to the Minister: if we can give some comfort and satisfaction to the parties involved in this matter, why not do so? What harm will it do to the Government, Parliament or the taxpayer? It can surely do only good; and so I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to say "Yes" to this Amendment. I beg to move.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I am sorry that my answer given on the previous occasion did not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, but I said—and I am reading from column 1688 of the Official Report of 5th November—having compared the effect of the Amendment with the effect of the Bill as it now stands:
"The only difference is that under the Bill the adjudication could occur only on appeal and not directly as the Amendment provides".
So I hope I made it clear.
Today the noble Lord has said that this is the kind of matter which is outwith the experience of the magistrates' courts. I really do not know upon what basis that assertion is made. I have beside me (because I asked for them) a great heap of Statutes, starting with the Statistics of Trade Act 1947—and there are many others, including three passed in 1973 and one in 1975 in which the section equivalent to the proposed new subsection was put in at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—all of which have sections putting the same kind of matter to courts of summary jurisdiction. I do not want to weary your Lordships by referring to them all in detail. It might be sufficient if I simply refer to the 1973 ones. One of them is the Employment Agencies Act 1973, where, in Section 9(3), the same kind of duty is laid upon persons to produce information to an officer of the licensing authority. Another one is the Fair Trading Act 1973, where the same kind of duties are laid down; and another one is the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973.
As I say, in order to show how long a history this kind of provision has, I can go back—and I am sure one could go back even further—to Section 4 of the
238
Statistics of Trade Act 1947. That also uses the same type of expression as we have here:
"…unless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure…",
that is a matter which then goes before the court of summary jurisdiction. So, far from it being the case, as the noble Lord opposite has suggested, that this is the kind of matter with which magistrates' courts are not familiar, this is the kind of matter which routinely is sent in Acts of Parliament for adjudication by that type of court. Of course, the matter can go on appeal to a higher court. It becomes in part a question of law, it may be in part a question of fact; but in my submission the proper court traditionally for this kind of thing is the magistrates' court.
The other consequence of the Amendment, or certainly of the so-called consequential Amendment, is that the refusal to provide the information requested ceases to be a refusal which has penal consequences. That is the effect of the Amendment which is No. 7, the deletion from page 72 of lines 2 and 4. It is not just a question of speed. But another matter is this: I should have thought that if one wants to achieve speed one follows the system which is laid down in the Bill. The requirement is made by the Secretary of State, and the person upon whom the requirement is made then has to supply the information. If he fails to do so, he can then be prosecuted. That must surely be quicker than taking matters to the High Court. In these circumstances, I think I can suggest to your Lordships that the criticisms which have come today from the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, are misconceived. The proper court is the magistrates' court, and the Bill simply follows an excellent number of precedents going back for at least 30 years.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his further explanation of this matter. I am sure that, for his part, he will appreciate that I am not a lawyer myself and that, as a layman, I am in this sort of matter rather at the mercy of (I was going to say) the advice of lawyers. I can only assure the noble and learned Lord that the lawyers who came to discuss the matter with me felt that the sort of examples and precedents he has quoted were not really of the same kind; that

239
there was really a chalk and cheese state of affairs. I can only say to him that they made these representations to me in a calm manner, not seeking to be fractious or difficult so far as I could judge, and clearly holding sincerely to the view they put to me.
This puts me in a difficult position, because I accepted the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord replied to our debate on Report stage. I thought, as a layman, that it sounded satisfactory. I was advised, I repeat by lawyers, that in their view it was not and that the precedents were not of the same kind; but I think I must leave it at this point and, although I am somewhat mystified as to the true situation in this matter in practice, I think I had better advise my noble friends not to press this matter and to let it rest where it is. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Aircraft industry]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 82, line 10, leave out ("Scottish Aviation Limited").
The noble Lord said: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Carr, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 9 which is essentially consequential upon Amendment No. 8. I should like at the outset to correct an inference which may be drawn from the remarks I made on Friday when speaking to the same Amendment. I said (at column 1712 of the Official Report):
"I accept that with really vigorous management, Scottish Aviation could pull round".
I believe it may be inferred that I was criticising the present management of Scottish Aviation. That was certainly not my intention. I have no reason to believe that they are other than excellent. My only quarrel with them is that they have publicly stated that they wish to be nationalised. I regret that they have seen fit to say that and I shall endeavour to persuade your Lordships that they are mistaken in that view.
The reasons I would suggest that Scottish Aviation ought not to be included in this Bill are threefold. First, by geography. They are far removed from the centres where the British Aerospace Corporation will have its business. The great centres of British aircraft manufacturing are, largely, in the South-East. There are, it is true, one factory at Preston and another at Chester, but those are comparatively small. The great factories at Weybridge, Bournemouth and Hatfield are all, broadly, in the South-East of the country. Scottish Aviation will, I believe, find itself a remote outpost of the Corporation at Prestwick in Ayrshire.
We have heard the Government say on a number of occasions that they will give autonomy (I think that that is the word used) to Scottish Aviation. I believe that will give that small company too much influence in the affairs of the new Corporation, influence at least really out of keeping with the size of their operation. The third point that I believe ought to be made is that Scottish Aviation is in a quite different line of business from the other companies that it is proposed to take over. At the present time, Scottish Aviation (I think it right to say), have no aircraft actually in production. The production of the Bulldog is now complete; the production of Jetstream is now complete. There is one aeroplane called the Bullfinch, a derivative of the Bulldog. I know that a prototype has been constructed but the aeroplane is not yet in production and is not planned for production, I understand, until a substantial number of orders can be demonstrated; and that is yet to happen.
It has been said, despite the fact that Scottish Aviation is not at present manufacturing light aeroplanes, that that company could form the nucleus of a new light aircraft manufacturing enterprise within British Aerospace. That, I must say, at first sight is an appealing argument, but I do not believe that the manufacture of light aeroplanes is a proper function for BAeC. This sort of business has to be very responsive, and quickly responsive, to market influences and nationalised industries historically have not been so good in that line of business. I do not think that Scottish Aviation, if it were to come into public ownership, would be able to do that particularly well. In any event, Scottish Aviation has no basic

241
aircraft design capability at the present time. Even the types of aircraft that I have mentioned were not originally designed by Scottish Aviation but for all practical purposes were complete designs acquired from other companies. Jetstream was acquired from the Handley Page enterprise which was in difficulties some years ago; Bulldog was acquired from the Beagle Aircraft Company which was in public ownership at the time and was not succeeding.
A further argument that has been advanced is that Scottish Aviation needs to be recapitalised now or in the near future; and that this could be best achieved, or only achieved, by complete public ownership. I would put it to your Lordships that that is not so. There are at least two ways which occur to me by which the company could be financed, by public money if need be, without going to the extent of nationalisation. The 1972 Industry Act could be used or the Scottish Development Agency Act could be used. It has been represented to me by the company—and they haw made no secret of it—that they see no future for themselves outside the British Aerospace Corporation. I suspect that such future as there may be for them within the Corporation is simply one of a sub contractor to the main companies. I fear that if Scottish Aviation come into public ownership the management of BAeC will find themselves obliged to sub-contract work to Scottish Aviation simply to keep that company going because the prospects of a closure or large-scale redundancy in Prestwick would be politically unpalatable to them. I do not think that that is a proper reason for nationalisation and I hope the noble Lord will not advance it tonight. Those are the principal reasons why I believe Scottish Aviation ought to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this. Although I have no connection with Scottish Aviation now, I did with two others play some part in founding the company about 40 years ago. I must say that to see this name in this Bill is a mixture of nostalgia, astonishment and, to some extent, pride—pride that the Government should take the bother to nationalise what is a relatively small organisation. The
242
company played a very valuable part during I the war particularly in the handling and repair of American aircraft which came over to this country. After the war, the company amused itself with some success in building aeroplanes which went slower and slower while everybody else were building aeroplanes which went faster and faster. Their aeroplanes played a part in various parts of the world, not least in South-East Asia, where I saw them operating in Malaysia and in the Borneo territories. Its name will always be associated with that of David McIntyre, who played a dynamic part and had an astonishing gift of foresight in seeing through the technology of aviation into the future. His death in a flying accident was a real tragedy. His name, very properly, is recorded at Prestwick Airport.
What I really want to say is that next Session we have, we are told, a devolution Bill coming to us. To the ordinary man in Scotland it looks as though every big business is being thoroughly collared by London control and then you devolve the few things that remain. This is what seems to be the position to everybody in Scotland. Here is another case of a small company which has quite a good record. I cannot speak for the present position as did my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. He reports them as saying that the company has no future outside the Corporation. The noble Lord himself says that the company has no future inside the Corporation. I do not believe that the Corporation, no matter how they are run, are going to be able to keep this organisation going as a part of the aircraft industry. It will inevitably be shut down and that will be a considerable loss. I should remind the Government that it was on this question that I believe on the only occasion in history Scottish Members of Parliament and Peers of Scotland in this country met in the City Chambers in Edinburgh. They discussed the points which arose from that.
I am fairly certain that unless the Government, if they want to nationalise this company, can give, some real assurance that it will have a degree of autonomy which will enable it to carry on, they are muddling up completely the principles of devolution which I believe they will explain to us in due course. I hope that the Government take this seriously. It is absurd to go in the direction

243
of centralising everything in London, when nearly everybody in this House believes we suffer from gross over-centralisation, in respect of a company which has prospered and will be completely lost with the two huge brothers with which it is supposed to be associated.
I ask the Government—and I daresay it is difficult because this in part is a matter of organisation, not politics—to say something that will give assurance that this very interesting development, which has had a record of high-grade engineering, will be able to continue. I am sure that it will give a great sense of relief to those who live in that part of the country.
5.42 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we are in a somewhat odd situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, the management want to be nationalised and see no future for the company outside the Corporation. The unions want the company to be nationalised. Only the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, perhaps does not want the company to be nationalised, which is rather odd. If I may take the point which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made, it is plain that the Organising Committee intends to maintain the separate identity of Scottish Aviation with a high degree of local autonomy. May I quote from what my right honourable friend said in a procedural debate in the other place, in Hansard of 29th June 1976 at col 237? He spoke of conversations and discussions that he had with my noble friend Lord Beswick. He went on to say:
"Lord Beswick informs me that it is the Organising Committee's intention to maintain the separate identity of Scottish Aviation, with a high degree of local autonomy, as a separate profit centre within British Aerospace".
That is the guarantee which has been given and I certainly would not attempt to modify or improve upon that.
May I now take the general point on devolution? The Government's proposals on devolution do not include devolution of trade and industry. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, he said, were threefold. There was an argument based on geography. That is a new argument; I do not think that it has been put forward here before. Surely
244
there must be many examples, particularly in this type of industry, of co-operation between parts of an industry which are spread over considerable geographical distances and, as we know, in different countries. He also feared that the Scottish element might have too much influence. He went on to contradict that, as I understood him, by saying that he saw its future simply as a sub-contractor. Surely, it cannot be right, if its future is simply that of a sub-contractor, that it will have much influence, that the tail will wag the dog.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My fear is that, as a sub-contractor—which is all I can foresee for them at the moment—they will have too much influence. Sub-contractors should not have too much influence; but the influence has already been promised by the Government.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, what has been promised by the Government is that so far as it may be able to be achieved, the Organising Committee will maintain the separate identity of Scottish Aviation. Of course, it will be envisaged that Scottish Aviation would, if they were able properly to do it, carry out sub-contracting work. I do not think that in answer to what has been said to day that I can add anything that was not said by me last Friday. In the circumstances, and in giving the unanimous wish of those who are involved—the company and the unions—that the company should be nationalised, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the matter.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am not going to advise my noble friends to vote on this Amendment. The Government are probably going to be proved to be unwise in what they are deciding to do. If they feel, for whatever reason, that Scottish Aviation should be brought into public ownership, then they would do much better to buy up the company and run it as such, rather than put it inside a great organisation like British Aerospace. As we said on Friday, there is a disparity in Scottish Aviation compared with Hawker Siddeley and British Aircraft Corporation which means they will not fit happily together as parts of one great holding organisation. It is like a great

245
chain-store supermarket operator like Tesco Stores deciding to buy the corner shop in the High Street in Barnet, where I live, and run it as part of Tesco Stores. It just would not work. If, for some reason, Tesco Stores felt that they wanted to own that corner ship, or the owners of the shop wanted to sell the store to Tesco, I am sure that if Tesco Stores bought it they would run it separately. This company running in harness with two giants like BAC and the aerospace and aerodynamic side of Hawker Siddeley, does not fit.
We will not press this Amendment to a Division, but I do not think the Government are wise always to equate public ownership with setting up everything inside a national monopoly corporation. They might get much more sympathy throughout the country for their plans of public ownership—I do not know that I should give this advice—if they did not always interpret public ownership as establishing a national monopoly. Scottish Aviation will come to regret the Government's decision in due course.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if the noble Lord feels that he has interpreted the Tesco Stores corner shop analogy as it will occur. If Tesco Stores were to purchase the corner shop, surely they would knock it down and erect a superstore in its place. The result would be that instead of one man and his wife being occupied in the shop, perhaps a hundred people would be employed. Most probably that is what is likely to happen in Scottish Aviation.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, if Tesco stores wanted that kind of operation, that is of course what they would do. I somehow do not think that the Government are saying to us: "Because we do not have a giant aerospace activity in Scotland, we need to purchase Scottish Aviation in order to get the base from which to create it". If the Government said that, there might be rejoicing both in Scotland and in Scottish Aviation. But I am afraid that that is not what the Government are saying. If the noble Lord hopes that it is, he is in for a bitter disappointment.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not going to press this Amendment now.
246
I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has not been able to tell me what plans the Government have for Scottish Aviation.
The worst fears that have been expressed that Scottish Aviation is only going to be a sub-contractor have not been dispelled. If it is the case that Scottish Aviation is going to be the nucleus of a new light aircraft industry— however unsuited we may feel it to be—why do not the Government say so? Are the Government going to finance the production of the Bullfinch? That is the only prototype the company has available at the moment. I fear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not able to answer me now for reasons of procedure. If I withdraw this Amendment and formally move the next one, I wonder if he would be able to answer that point then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 82, line 25, leave out ("7·5") and insert ("30").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment may I put a point to the noble and learned Lord as to what is the intention regarding Scottish Aviation? Is it intended that they should design and produce a new range of light aircraft? Is it intended that they should be sub-contractors to the other aerospace companies? I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I cannot answer in relation to the Bullfinch. Previously I gave the answer in relation to the general prospects. If I have not made it clear, may I say that in the Government's view the prospects for the future are likely to depend very much on Scottish Aviation's success in obtaining the sub-contract work which has provided so much of their work-load in the more recent past. There have been certain attempts by the company to proceed with other designs. These attempts have not been wholly successful. Certainly, so far as one can see in the immediate future, sub-contracting is likely to provide the largest part of the work. But one cannot say that it is the Government's intention to confine Scottish Aviation Limited solely to sub-contracting work.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey. I rather bowled him a fast one on that occasion. We will not pursue the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
5.51 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wonder whether I might detain your Lordships for a moment to look away from the detail of the Bill, which we have been discussing for many hours, to view the prospects for these two great industries which we have taken so much time in debating. These two industries have now been facing the prospect of nationalisation for over two years. I know that we on this side and noble Lords opposite may disagree about how to apportion blame for this continuing uncertainty. But no responsible person with a real interest in the future of these industries can ignore the fact that this uncertainty is now becoming deeply, critically damaging. Those in the industries who oppose the principle of public ownership have made it clear that they want, above all. to see the uncertainties ended.
As noble Lords opposite know—and as I have repeatedly said during the Bill's passage—the aircraft industry cannot long delay vital decisions which will determine its future size and capacity in this country. The scale of projects has now become beyond the resources of any single aircraft company and even beyond the resources of any single country. Because of the economic situation, until about six months ago, there had been relatively little firm activity on future new projects. But the outlook of aircraft manufacturing companies, governments and airlines is now quite different. They are beginning to enter into serious negotiations which will lead to the formation of groupings to produce the new generation of civil aircraft. The British aircraft industry has been involved in useful and promising discussions with a number of potential partners. These are now moving beyond the exploratory stage. But we shall find that they will make their alliances with others if the future organisation of our industry remains in doubt. Indeed it is not difficult to imagine that, as negotiaions now start to move towards the
248
formative stage, these uncertainties place our industry at a disadvantage. If a definite alignment is to be drawn up, the attractions of a partner whose future is in doubt will not be great. I now turn to the shipbuilding industry. During the discussion at Committee stage, a number of noble Lords asked what would be the future shape and size of the British shipbuilding industry. I can well understand their concern about this matter in the light of the difficulties which the industry throughout the world finds itself in. It is not, however, a question to which there are any simple or clear-cut answers. When the new Corporation, British Shipbuilders, is set up, it will be required to produce a corporate plan in consultation with the workforce, which it will then present to the Government. In producing that corporate plan, the Corporation will indicate how it sees the development of the shipbuilding industry.
It would be idle to pretend that any country can isolate itself from the effects of the current world downturn in orders for ships. This will mean difficult and sometimes unpleasant decisions must be taken. At the same time, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry has made clear in another place, we are determined to preserve a viable and efficient industry, and if necessary are prepared to take measures to ensure that we retain our fair share of world orders. Noble Lords will know that we have been having talks with the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders and with those who work in the industry, and on the international side, both in the EEC and in the OECD, about the future of the industry. Ministers have repeatedly said—and I repeat—that no jobs in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries will be lost solely as a result of nationalisation.
Indeed, in a time of great difficulty for the industry, we believe that nationalisation presents the best hope of being able to draw up a strategy which will ensure that we retain an industry which is able to compete in world markets. Every further delay makes it more difficult to draw up this strategy which is so vital for the future of the industry. I believe that the future of these two great industries, and the future of those who work in them, is at stake. I hope, for the sake of that future, that your Lordships will now allow

249
this Bill to proceed quickly to the Statute Book. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Melchett.)
5.56 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I understand that the custom of your Lordships' House permits me briefly to say a word of gratitude to those of my noble friends who have assisted in the debates on the Bill. I should like simply to say a warm "thank you" to both my Front Bench and Back-Bench colleagues who have done a great deal of work and given a great deal of application, quite apart from within this House and on the debates, to the very complicated issues raised in the Bill. May I also say, because I am sure my colleagues would wish me to do so, a word of thanks to the Ministers involved. We may not always have been satisfied with the substance of thcir replies—indeed, we have often been gravely dissatisfied—but we acquit them personally of responsibility for that, and we are grateful for the courtesy and assiduity with which they dealt with the points which we raised. We realise, particularly since they are not Ministers within the Department concerned, how difficult it has been for them to think on their feet and to meet our arguments as freely as we would have wished.
We might also wish to say, not personally to them, as is obvious from the words I have just used, but to the Government as a whole, that when a Government are introducing a major Bill of this kind, they should appoint a Minister in your Lordships' House to be attached to the Department involved for the passage of the Bill. I remember, when your Lordships' House was shortly to deal with the Industrial Relations Act, Mr. Edward Heath appointed my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn as a Minister of State without Portfolio to attach himself entirely to what was then the Department of which I was the Secretary of State, and to work in it for at least a month before legislation came to this House. He had daily access to me as well as to all my advisers throughout the whole of that debate. I feel that, whatever Government are in power, they ought to take that as a model by which we should deal with legislation of this kind in your Lordships' House.
250
This debate on the Question, That the Bill do now pass, provides us with an opportunity to sum up what has happened. This is particularly necessary in view of the somewhat emotional and extremely distorted comments which have been given currency, at least outside your Lordships' House, about what we have been doing. First, I understand that some people feel that we have been imposing a very undue delay on the passage of the Bill. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that it was only six weeks ago today that we had our Second Reading debate. The Bill has been passed through Second Reading to Third Reading in six weeks to the day. We have had five days in Committee and three days on Report. I would just ask your Lordships to compare that with the Industrial Relations Act, which I have already mentioned in another context. When noble Lords on the Labour Benches were on this side of the House at that time, they required 15 weeks—I repeat, 15 weeks and not just six weeks—between Second Reading and Third Reading. They required not five days in Committee but 18 days in Committee. They required not three days on Report stage, but nine days; that was on a Bill which, although guillotined in the other place, had had the longest number of days ever known on both Committee and Report stages on the Floor of the I louse in another place, and had not been considered simply by a Standing Committee upstairs with such a severe guillotine on Report stage that there was no opportunity for vast numbers of clauses to be debated. So I hope that before anybody in the Labour Party, inside or outside Parliament, makes accusations about undue delay they will just remember the figures I have just given and remember what they believed—and I am sure conscientiously believed—were necessary to deal with the Industrial Relations Act in your Lordships' House.
I turn now to another aspect; and that concerns the Amendments which we have made to the Bill in this House. Some 90 Amendments were made on both the Committee and Report stages, and another two today. Of the 90, 23 were introduced by the Government, and I believe I am right in saying that all but two of those 23 were introduced by the Government at Report stage, which indicated, I think, that they must have heard something

251
during the Committee stage which led them to think it would be wise to introduce themselves at Report stage certain matters they had not thought it necessary to introduce at Committee stage. That was at least some indication that our Committee stage was not wasted on the Government, or indeed on anybody else. Of the remaining 67 Amendments which were introduced by Conservative, Liberal and Cross-Bench Peers, eight were accepted by the Government without a Division.
Thus, we are left with 59 Amendments which were moved and pressed against the Government by Conservative, Liberal and Cross-Bench Peers. I think that, at least on all Amendments of importance, Members of your Lordships' House and, above all, people outside the House should realise that the Amendments were supported and pressed by Cross-Bench and Liberal Peers, and not simply by Conservative Peers. Of those 59 Amendments, of course, a considerable number concern minor consequential points. Some of the primary ones are relatively unimportant. Thus, Amendments of real consequence were mainly concentrated on a relatively few major issues. By no means all those major issues raised questions involving any Party political division, and therefore did not raise any clash of democratic will between your Lordships' House and another place. They raised matters which were in no way part and parcel of the Labour Party's Manifesto.
Let us look for a few moments at some of those Amendments. First, among the Amendments to which we attached enormous importance were those related to the limiting of the powers of the Secretary of State. I am going to talk only about two categories; that is, the powers of the Secretary of State relating to the duties of the Corporations and his powers relating to the powers of the Corporations. The line we have taken is, I believe, consistent. Where it is a matter of the Secretary of State wishing to lay a new duty on the Corporations not covered by the duties described in this Bill, that should require a full legislative process. Where it is a question of the Secretary of State wishing to give the Corporations new powers—that is, not putting new duties on them but giving them new enabling powers—it does not
252
require a full legislative process, but a Statutory Instrument which should be subject, we said, to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. However, going back to an earlier debate today, I would accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it might be a question of considering the Negative Resolution procedure as an alternative, at least in certain instances.
That is the view we have taken, and it is a proper Parliamentary view to take. It raises no question of a challenge to the democratic authority of the present Government because, to the best of my knowledge and belief, they did not say in their Manifesto that, in addition to nationalising these industries, they were going to give the Secretary of State powers, without further proper reference to Parliament, to add to the duties of the Corporations to embark on activities which are outside those defined in the Bill and those which are closely related to the industries concerned. I am sure that the Party opposite said nothing of that kind in their Manifesto. They said they were going to take into public ownership these particular industries, but they did not say that while doing that they were going to give the Secretary of State power, without further reference to Parliament, to add to those duties and powers. Therefore, I do not believe that the Government spokesman can claim that in taking up that issue we have in any way been challenging the mandate they claim to have received from the British people.
I now turn to the question of industrial democracy, which has been another main area of the debates which have arisen on certain Amendments which Conservative and Liberal Peers, with Cross-Bench support, have pressed to Divisions and have imported into this Bill. May I remind your Lordships that throughout I have been at great pains from this Dispatch Box to distinguish between the rights to collective bargaining and the rights to consultation. That is because, whatever I may feel in theory about the desirability of collective bargaining rights I admit that in practice it would have been a most explosive thing to attempt to spread the rights of collective bargaining to a much wider circle by Statute. That, if it is to come, must come by processes of industrial inquiry, negotiation, conciliation and a growing understanding. But

253
when we come to consultation, we are not only on much firmer ground but on ground that cannot be challenged.
If the Government wish, by means of this Bill and in advance of the report of the Bullock Committee and of general legislation on what is to be meant by "industrial democracy", to bring into this Bill as a pilot experiment something that they call industrial democracy of a strong and organic kind, then I think we must insist that the legal right to consultation must be available to all. It is wrong to create second-class citizens, which is what the Bill is doing so far as the legal right to consultation is concerned. I am sorry to use the word, but what the Government are proposing here is the creation of no more and no less than social apartheid inside industry. They are making first-class and second-class citizens and, in our view, to do that in the name of industrial democracy is intolerable
If I may go back to the mandate, I do not believe that the Labour Party gave the country to understand in any way that, when they undertook to nationalise these industries, they were at the same time going to introduce compulsory legal rights which would be available to some but not to all the employees of these Corporations. By having the courage to tackle this basic problem of human liberty, I do not believe that we are in any way challenging the mandate which the Government claim to have won from the country.
Now may I turn to another main area of debate and amendment, the question of compensation. Here there is no division on objective between the Government and the Opposition. The Government have said that what they intend and what they believe should be done, is that the owners of the assets which are being taken over should have the earning power of those assets fully replaced. We from this side—the Conservative, Liberal and Cross Benches—I believe have said without any disagreement, "Yes, that is the right objective. We support the Government in the objective". The difference between us here has not been a political one; it has been a purely technical one. Neither we nor any experts outside Parliament believe that the particular method proposed by the Government is capable of achieving their own declared objective. Not only is there doubt about
254
it, there is certainty about it, certainty that the Government's proposed methods cannot achieve the objective which they themselves set out.
Here we had two alternatives, one was to rip out from the Bill all the proposed procedures and put in alternative ones. Some such Amendments were debated and we saw a glimpse of what that might mean. The Opposition Front Bench decided to advise our noble friends and the House as a whole at this stage of the Bill not to do that. It would be difficult to explain, particularly to another place, what we were up to and why; so we decided to concentrate on widening the powers of the arbitration tribunal—the existence of which was proposed by the Government—so that they could genuinely take in enough factors surrounding each case to make sure that not only our objective but the Government's own objective was reasonably capable of achievement.
For the sake of constitutional peace in this country I hope that the Government will not misrepresent what your Lordships have done in amending this Bill so far as compensation is concerned. I repeat that I hope the Government will have the integrity to repeat in another place that what we have sought to do as far as compensation is concerned is to go along 100 per cent. with the Government's declared objective. We have merely sought to change the machinery slightly to make sure as far as we can that the objective which we all want to see is achieved. It is important not merely for constitutional peace but for the good name of the British Government, for investors not only in this country but foreign investors as well, and many other people on whom we are dependent at the present time as far as confidence and good will are concerned.
Briefly, I come to three areas of amendment which I admit are far more controversial: our Amendments to remove from the Bill ship repairing, and naval shipbuilding and delay implementation of the nationalisation of the aircraft industry. So far as ship repairing is concerned, we have argued quite simply that we do not think this is right on industrial grounds. We do not believe that ship repairing can achieve the flexibility which is required of that industry

255
if it is part of a great holding Corporation and we believe it is not correct on industrial grounds to put it within British Shipbuilders. Again I would say to the Government as I said a few moments ago on the much more limited case of Scottish Aviation, that if they really believe that they were in some way committed beyond recall to taking ship repairing into public ownership they ought not to have put it into a nationalised monopoly Corporation. They should have bought control in the individual companies. It is not what we from this side of the House would advocate and I hope that later on nobody will say that this is what we are advocating. I am saying to the Party opposite that if they must carry on with public ownership, and if they also believe not only in the fact of a mixed economy but in the versatility of a mixed economy, to go on putting everything into a number of huge nationalised monopoly corporations is a mad way of going about it industrially and is mad from many other political and libertarian points of view as well.
I would say to the Party opposite that we would have found it much more difficult to resist them on the public ownership of ship repairing had they chosen a different method of doing it. We are in no doubt that on purely industrial grounds it should be removed. May I say in passing that had we not come to that conclusion and had we not intended and believed that we could succeed in removing ship repairing on industrial grounds it is highly probable that we would have regarded it as our duty to take up the matter on the grounds of hybridity. Having listened to all the arguments and having taken full advice about it, we have played this in the open from the beginning and have listened with great care to the replies. We are not doing this simply because we believe it is right to oppose this on industrial grounds; but I think it is also right to say that, had we taken a different view on industrial grounds, we might well have had to take a certain view of our duty on grounds of hybridity.
Lastly, I come to the naval shipbuilders and all I want to say about them is that our reasons for removing them from the Bill are substantially two-fold. First, we genuinely fear that, if nationalised,
256
the naval shipbuilders will lose a significant portion of their overseas business. We believe that quite a number of foreign Governments who have been important customers in the past do not like purchasing from a Government controlled corporation, that is a nationalised corporation. This alone will lose our naval shipbuilders business which they can ill afford to lose in the years ahead. The second reason why we have taken naval shipbuilders out of the Bill is that we fear that the profits which these three successful companies are making will. once they are brought together with all the merchant shipbuilders in a single corporation, be milked off from them. Instead of being used to fertilise further growth and success in their already highly successful companies, they will be used to prop up companies in other parts of the Corporation and it is only too likely that the propping up operations will fail but the three highly successful naval shipbuilders will not have expanded as they otherwise might have done.
So far as the aircraft industry is concerned, it is simply a question of two things: first, we are genuinely convinced that nationalisation will damage and not help this industry. Secondly, and in particular we are appalled at the lack of industrial argument from the Government. After all, the predecessors of the Labour Government set up a very high powered committee to examine the industrial strategy—the Plowden Committee. The Plowden Committee reported and in fact recommended a measure of public ownership which ought to have been acceptable to the Party opposite, but they specifically recommended against nationalisation of the form we are embarking on here. What do the Government think they are doing, absolutely contrary to the recommendation of the committee which their predecessors, the same Party, set up to look into the industrial strategy for the future of the aircraft industry? I must remind your Lordships that the Government have not given one reason for disagreeing with the Plowden Committee. In fact they have not mentioned the Plowden Committee. All the mention of the Plowden Committee has come from other Benches.
We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, just now and on many other occasions about the uncertainty and the

257
damage of further delay. I must ask the noble Lord and his colleagues, who caused the uncertainty and delay in the first place? The uncertainty and delay of the last two and three quarter years is entirely of their own making, and of nobody else's. It has done great damage, and I simply refuse to admit that the need for some further delay is a satisfactory reason for doing even greater damage, because we are convinced that to nationalise these industries—certainly, to nationalise the aircraft industry, the ship repairing industry and the naval shipbuilders—will reduce the number of jobs in those industries in the short run. In the longer run it will reduce investment in those industries and, therefore, employment potentialities as well. It will blunt the technical edge of our industries in those fields compared with their competitors overseas, and will do damage. In the short run, it will mean a greater strain on the Chancellor's borrowing requirement, to reduce which, we are told, is the major problem in this country, and which the Chancellor has told us only in the last two days is now, once again, likely to be higher than the figure which he forecast to us in July, and for the reduction of which he asked us to accept very painful cuts.
We simply cannot understand why this Government insist on loading on to the borrowing requirement the costs of nationalisation, while thrusting on to the country cuts in fields which really matter to people. The people of this country do not want nationalisation. They do not want to bear the cost of nationalisation; and to suffer larger cuts than would otherwise be the case in the provision of homes and in capital expenditure on hospitals and schools, is crazy. So I say to the Government again: Go to the people and ask them. I have no doubt about the answer they will get.
6.22 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches have not altered our belief in any way, after the many hours and days that we have listened to the whys and wherefores about the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. We believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has just said, that it is wrong for the country. It never was right, and in today's economic climate it is even more
258
wrong. It will, I am afraid, only prove harmful and disastrous to everybody. The only possible reason that has some logic for the nationalisation of the aircraft industry is the merger between the two big companies, BAC and Hawker Siddeley, but that could be achieved without nationalisation. In fact, today I put up some very simple proposals which would achieve that and I sent them to the relevant parties. We cannot afford to spend £400 million plus on compensation for the aircraft industry. We need that money to invest in building the four civil air projects for the 1980s.
In all the arguments that have been put by Government Ministers in another place and on television, we have never heard from them that nationalisation, public ownership—call it what you will—will be good for the country's economy, so one can reluctantly conclude that they realise in their hearts that nationalisation is no good. But because, alas!, they are so firmly attached to their Left Wing Manifesto, they need their Left Wing in order for them to remain in Office. So, my Lords, the Government are in a cleft stick. How, at a time like this, can the Government put their ideologies before common sense and the good of the country? It would seem that the Prime Minister, ably supported by the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues, have a divine right to steamroller all this controversial and damaging legislation through Parliament, by the use of the guillotine; legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, is against the wish of nearly 75 per cent. of the electorate and which today can do no possible good in our negotiations with the IMF.
I should like to warn the Government, and in particular the Left Wing—which makes a change from them warning us that we have to toe the line—that in today's climate it is no longer a question of the people versus the Lords; it is the people versus the Commons. Only today on the tape machine, I saw that the Prime Minister had suggested that there is a conspiracy between the Tories in another place and the Lords to hold up present legislation. I cannot speak for the Conservatives or for the Cross-Benchers, but certainly we have not been approached about any conspiracy. We in this Chamber have a job and a duty to do which

259
were given us by another place; that is, to revise Bills and make them better. If we do not fulfil our task, this second Chamber might as well not exist. We can immediately start surrendering the freedom and liberty of our country. Should we be reformed as a result of doing our duty, I should not disagree; in fact, I should be for it. This Bill is abhorrent to most people, so when we get back many of our Amendments which have been guillotined in another place, let us stand firm and send them back again post haste, together with today's two Amendments, thereby fulfilling to the best of our ability our duty to the large majority of the British people of making this bad Bill slightly better.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? He is now looking to the future and saying that if the Commons reject some of these Amendments the Lords should stand firm. Does he make any distinction, when he looks at that list, with regard to Amendments which were originally discussed at great length and for many hours in the Commons? Will he still suggest that this Chamber should stand firm in pressing Amendments which were discussed at very great length in the other place?
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I believe that 46 out of 57 clauses were never discussed.
6.27 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I first apologise to the House if I do not stay until the absolute completion, but I have been here for 10 days and, I believe, 70 hours while this Bill has been discussed, and I erroneously expected that we should finish about eight o'clock, which I understand was the target set, and I made other arrangements. So I hope that I shall not be accused of any discourtesy to the House.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not give everyone the impression that we might not finish by eight o'clock.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am merely saying, out of courtesy to the House, that if I have to leave it is not
260
a lack of duty of which I may be guilty, but a lack of anticipation. What I found satisfactory about all our discussions was that we had a very loyal attendance, not only on this side but on the Cross-Benches and the Liberal Benches, and many speeches in support of so many of our Amendments from all those quarters, as well as many robust speeches from the Labour Benches, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with whom I served for 20 years. I was always destined, since he was a senior Privy Counsellor and I was not, to follow him in something like 25 debates over that period in the House of Commons. So I have not missed many of his speeches, which are always very apt, and they helped us in our discussions on this Bill.
We have been deeply critical under five headings. We were deeply critical that ship repairing was included, mainly because we had not heard the case made out, and we still have not heard it made out very well. Secondly, we were critical about compensation, because we felt it was unrealistic and would affect the wellbeing of the rump of the companies which are not to be nationalised. Thirdly, we felt that warships should not have been included, and that it would prejudice our export potential if they were. Fourthly, we felt that the power of the Secretary of State under this Bill was too great. Lastly, as my noble friend Lord Carr has so aptly said we were suspicious of the industrial democracy clauses, for which, I believe, a special Bill is to be introduced. It would have been better if they had been left to that Bill, rather than being included in this public ownership Bill. I think he chose the phrase "social apartheid" which is apt. It is sad to think that unless some change is made, two-thirds of the people in the aerospace industry will not be consulted and will not be part of those who under industrial democracy are trying to shape and change the plans of the industry and the firms for which they work.
If I may summarise, the Government case seems to have rested on this: it is a considerable step towards Socialism. This has been said in several quotations. Also, they must do it because it is in the Manifesto. I have been looking at some of the more embarrassing aspects. I hope that the noble Lord, tired as he must be, will be able to avoid a blush when I quote some of the things also in

261
the Manifesto which have certainly gone by the board. It says that they will introduce strict price control. Tell that to the housewives! They will introduce new marketing changes which will help stabilise food prices. That will go down well in this country! If you were to stand in a by-election on that, I imagine you would not do as well as in the last three by-elections. Lastly, they said that they would supply steady stocks of mortgage funds at a reasonable rate of interest. In another place, this was a reference to the ghastly rate of 8 per cent. charged under the Tory Government, which preceded it. It is now 11.5 per cent. if you are lucky and 12 per cent. if you are not. All those promises are easily cast aside, but somehow the policy to go ahead with nationalising shipbuilding, ship repairing, marine engine building and aerospace is sacrosanct, despite the fact that my noble friends have said that it will cost in commitments to this country over £2 billion.
I refer to the February 1974 Manifesto because the October one was really a restatement. What I found strange was that they do not talk about nationalisation in any of those documents. Never. It is "taken…into public ownership". Curiously enough, they set two completely separate standards. It says here,
"We shall also take shipbuilding, shiprepairing, and marine engineering, ports, the manufacture of airframes and aeroengines into public ownership."
That, incidentally, is under the heading—it would be a mockery these days—" Employment and Expansion", neither of which has been in evidence since February 1974. Then, under another heading which has been put second in priority:
"Labour's determination to ensure…that North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources [are taken into] full public ownership."
Therefore, "full public ownership" means 51 per cent,; "public ownership" means 100 per cent. That standard must be extremely difficult for the electorate to understand. It rather exposes the fact that really it is not the Manifesto; it has nothing to do with it. That is really the excuse. It is the Marxist wing of the Labour Party which insists that they jump, and every time it insists that they jump, they jump. I hope the time is coming when the Social Democrats will use their strength to make sure that they are not kicked about by people whose long-term
262
interest is not the well-being of the Labour movement or, I may say, of our country.
What has changed since 1973 when this commitment was first voiced in the Labour Party pamphlet? First, they have the barest majority. Only last night it was evident that people had to be dragged, kicking and screaming —or, shall I say, the baby had to be dragged in kicking and screaming? The barrel had to be scraped pretty low before they got a majority of one.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, with respect, I really think that in this day and age that sort of remark is rather below the standard we ought to expect.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am delighted to take instruction from an academic who has just arrived in our midst. He was critical. I do not think that there is anything wrong in saying that. If you read the papers, you will see that they were much more biting than I was. There were headlines about a baby coming in. Incidentally, the person concerned is my own Member of Parliament, so I am perfectly at liberty to mention her. Also, I think someone came from Northern Ireland. I did not mention the name. It was all in the front page of the mid-day edition of the Evening Standard, if the noble Lord wishes to look at it.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should withdraw his last remark.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am very sorry. If anyone can find anything wrong in saying that they have just got a majority of one and it needed a baby in the Lobby and a person dragged from Northern Ireland to produce that majority of one, I cannot. In the previous round they did not have a majority at all until it was re-tried and there were certain arguments about the pairing arrangements. Everyone knows about that; it is proven. I see no reason to withdraw. If they had a majority of 50 or 100 I should feel quite differently, but when it is one, any person with a conscience, and who is keen on democracy, should be careful what he forces through both Houses with such a slender majority.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well what f was referring to; it was the phrase "kicking and screaming", and, "dragged into the Lobby".
Lord ORR-EWING: I am sorry, my Lords. Perhaps I should not have said "kicking". As noble Lords recognise it is a political quotation from many decades ago when it was said that a political Party had
" been dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century."
I said "kicking and screaming". I understand there was some screaming nearby; I would withdraw "kicking". Certainly they were dragged, there is no question about that.
What has happened since then? Not only has the majority shrunk to a bare one, but sterling has dropped from 2·30 dollars to the pound to 1·60 dollars to the pound and public expenditure has soared. With it, bureaucracy has gone up. Above all, members of the Inter-national Monetary Fund have arrived on our shores to try to determine what is to he done with our economy. That is what has changed. That is why, even at this late date, the Government should be looking at every possible way of saving public funds and saving divisive measures of this sort which cause damage to our economy.
I heard Michael Foot say on television that they had won the argument in another place. I was not there to listen, but certainly I never heard the argument being won here, despite the efforts by the Minister, particularly as it concerns ship repairing. I would ask him on this issue, is this not an ideal opportunity to leave that part out of the Bill? I do not believe it ever should have been in. It is a service industry totally out of accord with ship-building and its problems are totally different. I estimate it would save about £30 million of public funds. Is it not worth saving £30 million? Of course, I should also like to see them taking out warships. If the three warship firms were valued and fairly compensated that would be worth £70 million, making a total of £100 million.
As I understand it, we are not going to vote against the Third Reading tonight. I am sorry. This arises from what I
264
believe to be an archaic understanding of some 30 years ago. There was the Salisbury Addison Agreement which was drawn up in 1947. I cannot get a published edition from the Library. I think it is an unwritten agreement. Broadly, it was that we would not vote in this House on Second or Third Readings against major measures which were in the mandate of the governing body, in the Commons—
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment to ask him how he knows that there is going to he no Division on the Third Reading of this Bill tonight?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, that is very well put. My noble friend has always been robust. I said, as far as I knew. I would not have apologised for leaving at 8 o'clock had I had other suspicions. Of course, everyone is free and I am delighted that Cross-Benchers may take a more robust attitude. I ant saying we are abiding by an agreement which I suggest was made under very different circumstances. Mr. Attlee's Government had a majority of 150 or more. This present Government—
Lord SHINWELL: One hundred and eighty-four, my Lords.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I was being generous. I said 150. It might well have run down to about 168 at the end of the period. I remember helping to win three or four by-elections of a considerable swing within that period, hut not as great as Workington. However, there was a considerable majority when that agreement was made. In the present circumstances, I wonder whether we are right to abide in every way by that agreement which was made some 30 years ago.
Like many others in this House, I believe that we should reform the House along some of the many lines that have been discussed. However, until the House is reformed I believe that we have a dedicated duty to examine and revise legislation in detail, as we have been trying to do. This duty was laid down for us by Mr. Attlee's Government. We have certain delaying duties and rights which were also laid down by the Labour

265
Government of the day, and until such time as our reform is undertaken I believe that we have to examine the tradition of never voting against measures which we intrinsically believe are damaging to British industry and which are opposed by 75 per cent. of the population. I do not believe that when the Party opposite have a majority of one in another place we can go on for ever allowing a minority Government, controlled by a minority within it, to dictate what is good for this country. Therefore I hope that we shall rethink the formula that was agreed some 30 years ago.
6.41 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, we seem to be nearing the end of this very long Test Match, which reminds me of an incident in a film some years ago called "The Final Test". An American who was keen on baseball got into one of the stands at Lords and sat between two elderly gentlemen who watched every ball very intently. After about five maiden overs the American turned to one of these fellows and said, "Gee, I hope that something exciting is going to happen soon". The reply was, "I sincerely hope not". In the match that we are engaged in today the bowling of my noble friends has been good and varied but the batsmen have employed a brilliant stonewalling technique.
Certainly this technique applies to that part of the Bill with which I have been involved to a small extent; namely, compensation by notional share values. In that respect it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has come to the wicket padded by thick briefs from head to toe and specially reinforced in the head and ears. We have tried our best to explain how notional share values simply do not make sense and I feel quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, understands this perfectly well, too. However, I am going to make one more effort to try to persuade the noble Lord that the concept of notional share prices just does not make sense. ft is an entirely new concept. Nobody knows what it means and the intention is to use it for compensating two very important industries.
266
I am sure everybody will be pleased to hear that I do not intend again to go over a lot of old ground. However, I shall repeat something which is illustrative of the point that I am trying to make. In order to arrive at an estimate of the compensation for all hut one of the 43 companies, it is necessary to calculate the price which the shares of those companies would have had if they had been quoted on the Stock Exchange between August 1973 and February 1974. Such a calculation simply cannot he made. If a notional share price is to be calculated in any systematic way, it must be possible to show what factors determine share prices and the weight that the stock market gives to each of those factors.
Many leading City analysts, statisticians and economists have attempted to do this in order to discover whether it is possible to predict future share prices. Obviously it would be very nice to do that, if one could. They subjected data for the larger companies that went back for some years to the most advanced statistical methods, but they found that it was impossible to make predictions with a degree of accuracy that was either helpful, conclusive or meaningful. The weightings given to a number of factors appear to be completely random. In other words, there is no clear or apparent relationship between the share price of an individual company and the general level of the stock market. Two almost identical companies can have a totally different share price when measured short term or over a longer period.
It would be extremely interesting if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could give a clear explanation of how a notional share price is to be calculated when Stock Exchange experts find that this is impossible. I believe that the Arbitration Tribunal are going to have a busy and an impossibly difficult task.
6.46 p.m.
Lord NELSON of STAFFORD: My Lords, even at this advanced stage I have again to declare an interest. The company with which I am associated has a 50 per cent. interest in the British Air-craft Corporation. I shall confine my remarks mainly to the aircraft industry and at this late hour I shall keep them short. May I add my apologies to those

267
of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, should I have to leave early. I, too, underestimated the timing of this after-noon's proceedings.
I must confess right from the start a bewilderment that in the desparate straits of this country, which were referred to earlier by the noble Lord opposite, we still have this Bill to nationalise the aerospace industry. It is not an industry which is in grave difficulties, again a point which was referred to by the noble Lord opposite. It is an industry which is healthy, prosperous and dynamic and I am glad that noble Lords have referred to this point on several occasions. Why, therefore, are we submitting the industry to the traumatic experience of a major merger and a major reorganisation?
I must also confess to your Lordships that I have listened with great care to what has been said and I have also read with great care what has been said, both here and elsewhere, to try to find a valid explanation or a valid reason for the step which is being taken. There is none. One is only able to agree with my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, who said earlier that there is no valid reason. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who said that if there is a reason for the merger of BAC and Hawker Siddeley, it could have been effected in other ways.
Your Lordships have made many Amendments to the Bill and have improved it in numerous ways, but I should still like to see the Government take their courage in both hands and either drop this measure or put it on one side, having regard to the circumstances in which the country finds itself. I believe that this step would have been welcomed by the vast majority of people in this country. I believe also that such a step would have eased the Government's task in their current negotiations with the IMF. Having said that, I am sure that it is the desire of many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber that, once the Bill has been passed, those charged with the great responsibility of reorganising and running this great industry should have our good wishes in the weeks and years to come.
I must say, however, that even after the Amendments which your Lordships have recorded during these days of debate,
268
I am still gravely concerned about the future of this industry. We should recognise that many questions have been left un-answered. It is not only a question of a strategy for the industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned earlier, we have had strategies for this industry for decades. A strategy is nothing new. What we are talking about is how the industry is going to be run. That is what is important. In this respect, I have a few remarks to make which may be helpful to the Chairman-designate of the Aerospace Corporation, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber at this point.
What I have to say is designed to be helpful to him in the task with which he will be faced. What are the guiding principles of a State organisation? Are they the economic criteria of the business world or are they the political criteria of the Government of the day? Listening to the complaints of chairmen of present nationalised industries, this issue is not clear by any means. Where does the authority lie, with the Secretary of State or with the chairman and his Board or with the chief executive? After hours of debate on this question we still do not know where the authority really lies. What happens when these parties disagree? Who has the final say? How do we ensure the speed of decision and response necessary to meet world competition?
The noble Lord opposite referred earlier today to the need for the power of enterprise and the power of initiative. How very much I agree with him; but we were told very firmly in another place by the Minister charged with this Bill that the Government were not acquiring the shares in this business; they were nationalising it. How can you say, "We must have initiative and enterprise", and at the same time say, "We are not buying the shares and taking over the business; we are nationalising it"? That was the argument put forward to justify the terms of compensation, but now they are saying that they are acquiring the business and that enterprise and initiative will be retained. In my opinion we cannot have it both ways.
How does one Government Department, which is the purchasing Department, settle its differences with another Government Department which is the department responsible for the industry concerned?

269
It is a very difficult issue. What happens when the Secretary of State changes? When the Government change? When the top civil servants change? This will happen. Their careers do not lie in the industry; their careers lie elsewhere. This industry must be run by career people who know what they are doing, who live with the industry and make the decisions in the industry. My fear is that that is not what we are going to get.
Look at the changes which have taken place in the past. Look at the number of Secretaries of State who have been responsible for this industry. One only has to look at that in order to see what will happen in the future. I think there is a lot in this measure which offends the basic criteria of good management. That is what a competitive international industry needs, good management. That means clarity of responsibility and authority. Have we got that? It means clarity of objectives—financial, commercial and production. Are we going to have that and, over all, are we going to have political instability as the guiding hand over this industry?
There is another point I should like to make to your Lordships. Nationalisation means access to the public purse and this removes some of the basic financial disciplines which are essential to a highly competitive industry. Failure to achieve results no longer means disaster. Orders become the god and not sound business judgment. What happens to wage claims and overmanning? These are no longer governed by the potential for bankruptcy. Are we going to see wage negotiations removed from the factory, where they should be dealt with, to the Secretary of State's office in the glare of the national spotlight? These are some of the reasons why I have grave concern for the future of this industry under this measure and these are some of the reasons, in my opinion, why the nationalised French industry is losing millions every year.
I made these notes on these particular issues last night. when thinking what would be appropriate to this particular debate. I picked up my Financial Times this morning and found these issues almost identically spelt out in a report headed, "NEDO highly critical of State industries". It may be your Lordships have already seen this, but perhaps I may give just a quick quotation:
270
"The National Economic Development Office has completed a long and highly critical study of the nationalised industries, recommending major structural changes in their relations with government."
It goes on to refer to:
"the creation of supervisory boards…a management board which is left free to operate within the guidelines laid down by the Government without day to clay interference."
It makes:
"detailed criticisms of the capital structure of State corporations…the drawbacks of the present system of annual reporting to sponsor Ministries, the relative weakness of State management in resisting union claims and the degree of short term interference by Ministers and civil servants in pricing and investments of the nationalised industries."
I happened to see that this morning and those are exactly the fears which prompted me to put these points on a piece of paper last night.
I should like to make two further points, the first in regard to ship repairing. Those of us who have had experience in industry of manufacturing and those of us who have had the experience of repairing will know that these are quite different businesses. It is not a question of using the same labour, the same river or the same area; it is a different business. Ship repairing is a service which has to be handled quickly and expeditiously to meet the demands of a customer as they arise in an emergency. Manufacture has to be planned ahead, shops properly loaded, machine tools loaded, labour fully employed. These are completely inconsistent with each other and cannot be done effectively in the same plant.
That is not to say that shipbuilding should not take on repairs in order to fill gaps in its production. That is quite a different thing. But if you are giving service as a repairing shop you must be free from the fixed requirements of production, of schedules, penalties and of customer requirements. I should like to support strongly the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Carr in hoping that the Government will respect the change which has been approved by your Lordships that ship repairing should be excluded from this measure. On compensation I am glad that your Lordships have improved these provisions unsatis-factory as they are by widening the terms of reference of the Arbitration Tribunal. For the life of me I cannot see how anybody can argue that it is fair for a

271
business to be valued on a fictitious share value of three years ago, taking no account of changes which have subsequently taken place either in the company, outside the company or in the value of money.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who touched on this earlier today. To my mind this is a critical point for confidence in the Government's handling of this type of compensation. We wish to see more investment in this country, we want to attract investment from overseas and that can only he done if there is such confidence. Confidence will only come if it is seen that fairness is forthcoming in a situation like this. I hope this change will ensure that the Tribunal is in a position to ensure that fairness. The Government themselves have said that they wish to see fairness and I hope that in order to achieve that they will accept the Amendment which your Lordships have put forward.
It has been a long and arduous course for this measure. We can only hope that success will fall to those who have the difficult task of carrying out what is finally decided, but I also hope that the Government, in examining the Amendments put forward by your Lordships, will recognise the wisdom and the sense in them.
7 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is not here, because I wished to comment on the fact that when he spoke earlier he talked about trying to finish by eight o' clock. I should not wish to disappoint the noble Lord in that timetable, and, as always, will try to be as co-operative as possible. Working on the basis that "brief is beautiful", I shall speak for not more than four minutes. I wish to make a few points in thanking noble Lords opposite, first the Front Bench for being so courteous and also for the humour that they have shown, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on two occasions which I should like to recall to him. One of those occasions was when the noble Lord was particularly helpful to me on an Amendment which he accepted, and on another occasion when I thought I stung him to reply. I do not
272
think I ever really got a final answer, and I do not expect to get one now, but remind the noble Lord that he never actually replied to me. I felt I was right at the time when I reminded him of his remarks about consultation. He said that his noble friend Lord Beswick had said that he was willing to see anybody at any time. This was one point on which probably I was right at the time, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is big enough to accept that point.
I wish also to raise the question of the powers of the Secretary of State. These are vast and sweeping. The Secretary of State is able to dictate to the Corporations what to do, providing approval is obtained by Statutory Instrument, which is un-amendable. The Government say that the Corporations should he run on a commercial basis, but one point that seemed to come out, time and time again, is that if the Secretary of State has so much power to interfere it is hard to see how it is possible to run these Corporations on a real commercial basis. Then we come to industrial democracy. My noble friend Lord Ferrers moved the omnibus Amendment. This raised a few smiles when we talked about the dative and the ablative use of the word, but it really got to the heart of the matter. On that occasion my noble friend made the point that industrial democracy should be by all the people and for all the people. At the moment, I am certainly not reassured that this is the case. I hope that we have done something to try to improve this situation, but perhaps we have not been able to go as far as we should have liked.
My Lords, finally, to turn to ship repairing, one point which has not been brought out is with reference to the PA report, mentioned on many occasions. The PA management consultants made the case for Government assistance particularly strongly when it concerned problems attached to the opening of new large dry docks to accommodate enormous new ships. The whole question of investment arises here. One company, a holding company of a ship repairing company, owns the largest dry dock in the world, acquired by the American Navy. This could have been brought to England if the Government had encouraged it, but they discouraged this investment. It is very sad that at this time such Government action has inhibited the industry. My

273
Lords, may I thank once again the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his colleagues on the Front Bench for their courtesy? It is sad that so much effort has been put into such a misconceived and expensive Bill.
7.5 p.m.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships in that, having read the number of words that I have spoken in connection with this Bill, I can assure your Lordships that I shall take only seven and a half minutes more of your time. I have no intention of speaking about the past or on the details of this Bill, but, if I can, I will try in a few moments to convey to your Lordships the implications of the Bill. Those of us who have had something to do with ship-building or aircraft in the past will know that one of the most moving sights in the world is that of a ship going down the slipway; and there is nothing more impressive than a good British ship, built on time. I shall be seeing the launching of one of these on Thursday of this week. Equally, there is nothing more impressive than seeing a new aircraft, a new design. We shall all remember the first time that we saw Concorde take off, or the jump-jet Harrier jumping into the air like a spider on a hot plate.
The fact that this nation can build and design ships, that we can build and design aircraft successfully, as we have demonstrated in the past, may not necessarily be so in the future, unless there is one element which currently is missing: that is, the co-operation between Government and the public sector, the private sector, and the international market place. From these Benches we would argue that Government co-operation with the ship-building and aviation industries should not be by seeking to acquire them, but by finding another way. If the Party for whom I speak were in power, we should be approaching this problem very differently.
But no one who has an ounce of common sense in his head would dispute the fact that Government involvement in the aviation and shipbuilding industries is essential. Regrettably it is essential in shipbuilding, in that Governments around
274
the world, for political or other reasons, have found it essential to create a ship-building industry which is heavily subsidised. We have raised these points before in connection with South-East Asia. Our own shipbuilding industry cannot compete on the international markets without some Governmental involvement in finance. Equally we would argue that because of the substantial cost of the development of new aircraft, and because of the inevitable political involvements, some Government relationships on the aviation side are essential.
Whether for political or other reasons, the Government are approaching this particular Bill and its implications without giving due consideration to the advice that has been freely offered to them by the private sector and by the soundings taken in the international market place. Further, I think we should argue, and. the point has been raised in Committee and on Report, that the Government are entering into an open-ended financial commitment which they have not yet quantified and which other people have attempted to forecast by setting at substantial amounts of money, but the Government have given no satisfactory explanation as to how they propose to finance it. The danger for the future on the financial side is that if because of the requirements of, say, financial expediency, the Government fail to provide these two new agencies with adequate funds for their own development, and fail to capitalise them in the right and proper way, then they will be running from behind and will never be able to get into the international markets.
My Lords, if we are to have a nationalised shipbuilding industry and a nationalised aviation industry, let the Government bear in mind that they will require far more money than they would require if those industries remained in private hands. There has never, to my knowledge, been a transfer of assets or of ownership, on this scale that has not brought with it financial commitment, way above that which the protagonists have claimed is necessary. The profitability of these industries, if some are profitable, can only decline during the transient years before the appropriate reorganisation is completed. The demands placed on management are considerable. We know in these arguments that it is not necessarily labour forces,

275
but management, which is essential if we are to have a successful industry. This management is hard to come by at present. Many of the brighter brains or more effective managements, both in the private and in the public sector, feel that there is only so much that they can do in a spirit of patriotism. They think of their families. They feel that there is only so much they can do in order to generate and build businesses without appropriate rewards and remuneration.
The difference between these industries and previous industries which have been nationalised by successive or previous Governments is that these two industries require, above all, the spirit of the entrepreneur, the man who "gets up and goes", who makes his decision on his own. Many of these organisations which will be acquired have established links throughout the world with entrepreneurs who have helped them build their businesses. These are men who in days gone past would have been known as buccaneers or privateers, people who got up and pursuaded people to buy an aircraft even before it was built and before it was known whether it would fly. This sort of salesmanship, one might say persuasion, is not something that Embassies or Governments are normally successful at doing.
The sales and exports of this nation in general have rested almost entirely in the hands of the private sector and almost completely in the hands of a relatively small number of large companies with good management. I am not convinced by anything I have heard from the Benches opposite—and it is sad that we have heard so little—that the Government's proposals for the financial structure of the new industries or their management will ensure that they are successful. I have no doubt that they could be successful, Aerospace above all, and that ship-building, with substantial pruning and reorganization—because the men and organisation are there; it is not all capital investment—could be successful. It is a question of motivation.
If the Government intend to go ahead with this legislation—I have not spoken a word against the principle because it was in the Manifesto;I have spoken only against implementation—let them bear in
276
mind that it is still not too late to consult with people outside who know better than they do about the running of successful businesses; and the outside world is willing to co-operate with Government, even though it may disapprove of their policies. I ask noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, bearing in mind the problems in another place: please use your powers of persuasion to encourage your right honourable friends to give consideration to some of the words that have been spoken in your Lordships' House. If not, many of us will feel that we have wasted much time unnecessarily. Many of us have done it with the right sense of proportion and, perhaps we can say, in a certain spirit of patriotism.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I seem to be speaking rather earlier than I had expected. In any event, I assure noble Lords that I have only a few comments to make, which will please everybody because it is getting late and we have had a tremendous debate. I am anxious to get my first point on the record, but let me preface it by saying that in my view the arguments against the Bill have been stated admirably by many noble Lords who have experience of what is involved and what will follow the implementation of what in my view is a deplorable Bill; I am absolutely deadly opposed to it.
Having said that, may I add that we should remember that once the Bill becomes law, once the machinery has been put into operation and once the compensation has been paid, there will be no chance of ever reversing the process should a new Government coming into power wish to do so. It is important to realise that, because many previous measures introduced by Labour and Conservative Governments have been able to be withdrawn or reversed by an incoming Government. That is not so with this Bill. As I say, once it becomes law there appears to be no method of reversing it, however much a new Government may wish to do so. The country, which is mostly against this nationalisation, should be told that because it is important.
I remember what happened when the then Labour Government nationalised the mining industry. When I was returned

277
to Parliament in 1950 as the MP for Tynemouth, having been defeated in 1945, I was continually being asked why the Conservatives did not withdraw the Act nationalising the coal mines. The country felt that that could and should have been done, but in fact it was impossible. Equally, once this Bill becomes law and the machinery is introduced and the inadequate and unfair compensation paid, there will be no opportunity, as far as I can see, to withdraw it, and it is very important that the country should be told that.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be able to answer a question I have about the power of the Secretary of State and those who will run the two Corporations. Will it be possible to withdraw the Secretary of State's powers? At least, if we could do that, we could in future stop the implementation of some of the suggestions that have been made about extending the powers of the Corporations over a field so wide that it has horrified many people, including myself.
I sometimes have a little laugh to myself when I hear it said, time and again, that the Secretary of State will be making appointments. Although I do not particularly like the various Secretaries of State, I think that one of these days they will drop down dead because of the tasks which are being given to them. I do not see how any Secretary of State can take on the responsibility of appointing all the boards and choosing people and generally having to do far too much. The powers which are being given to the Secretary of State and the Corporations under the Bill seem almost endless and could, of course, involve in a way the nationalisation of many small industries which are not included in the measure. Lord Melchett is always nice when he tries to answer our questions, although rarely is he able to answer any. Nevertheless, in this difficult world we like triers, even when we say, "How awful! they don't know their stuff". I should like to know whether it would be possible to withdraw these powers, even if we cannot reverse this most unfortunate and disliked Bill.
As the recent by-elections proved, the people in my part of the world do not like nationalisation. That does not mean
278
to say that they would prefer the Tories to be in power. I was for quite a time the MP for the highly industrialised seat of Wallsend, a large shipbuilding area. I won it in 1931. Everybody wrote me off in 1935, but fortunately the constituency decided to retain me, so I know something about what the people feel. They certainly sometimes voted for me, though that does not say that they liked my policy or agreed with me. However, they were kind enough to keep me as their Member of Parliament and therefore I got to know quite a lot about shipbuilding and ship repairing and the problems, needs and requirements of those engaged in the industries. I want to say, though I do not know whether or not my Party agrees with this, that I feel that I should certainly like to see some of the good trade union representatives sitting on boards. I am all in favour of that, whether it be in private or in nationalised industries. I believe that one wants to look a long way ahead and I believe that that policy is coming and will shortly be put into operation and I certainly approve of it.
Finally, as regards ship repairing, I have always tried to do what I could and I am very well satisfied with the shipping industry. I think that it has done a magnificient job for the country and for our economy. I know that the shipping people do not want ship-repairing firms nationalised. So I certainly agree with that and I am very glad that, up to the moment, we have managed to remove ship repairing from the Bill be means of our Amendment. I hope that perhaps the Government will realise why the shipping industry does not want ship repairers nationalised. I believe that it is a tremendous problem. Swan Hunter had and still have a ship repairing yard and I know that when a ship came in with some damage done to it the organisation would start ringing up men on both North and South Tyneside and would get men over who would co-operate marvellously. We have first-class workers on Tyneside if they do not get spoilt by this unfortunate Labour Government. They are magnificent people. They respond. However, if one has an industry that is run more or less centrally and is controlled by the Secretary of State and these Corporations one will not be able to get in each ship repairing yard a body of qualified management and co-operative

279
workers with whom one can get in touch at a moment's notice. One will not have that if ship repairing yards are included in this horrible nationalisation Bill.
I hope that at any rate the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will, if I may say something rather impolite, learn a little more about ship repairing and how it is worked for the benefit of its workers and of the country and of all our industrial undertakings. That is all I have to say. I hope that the Government will be thoroughly defeated in due course, but I realise that once the machinery is started and once that unjust compensation has been paid it will be difficult to change matters. The compensation is very much worse than in the first instance when it was paid to the coal owners when the mines were nationalised. I try to understand a little psychology and I quite realise that when the Government nationalised the mining industry they thought that if they used an independent body to assess the compensation that was to be paid—and the owners thought that they were very well compensated—that would be a good idea psychologically. Since then, however, they have nationalised so many industries that they do not mind what anybody thinks, so that they think it quite all right to give unjust and unfair compensation to the shipbuilders. That distresses me very much.
That is all I have to say. I hope that the Bill never reaches the Statute Book. I hope that we shall have a General Election. I hope that the Government will be defeated, as I am sure they will be. I hope that we shall start trying to rebuild the very important shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries, though I do not know anything about the aircraft industry because it hardly affects my part of the world. I have enjoyed listening to the debates and all the wonderful speeches made by the many people who know about the details of these industries and I therefore hope that before long the Government will be defeated and the Conservatives Back in power. I believe that that will be a good thing for industry, the worker and the economy of the country as a whole.
7.26 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I sometimes wonder, if your Lordships
280
had thrown in the towel over these five Bills and said, "Oh, the other place with its elected majority has passed them, let's give formal recognition and have done with it, "thus saving a lot of Parliamentary time and late hours, what would have been the reaction of the country and the other place. I suspect that we should have been accused of being cowardly and insipid and any other adjective one likes to use. As we are undertaking a proper exercise of revision, all sorts of rather lurid adjectives and threats are being issued. Those who watch the Today programme and the Tonight programme and other such television programmes where one can hardly keep away from the politicians, will know full well the slings and arrows that are being thrown from side to side.
The fact remains that, of the five dismal Bills with which your Lordships are at present involved, the present Bill must be the most dismal. It has really not been thought out at all. I can only talk in a limited way about shipbuilding and ship repairing. As I said on Second Reading, I have spent many years in the field of insurance and what worries me very much is the kind of relationship there will be between the Corporation and Lloyd's and other insurance organisations if, by any mischance, the ship repairing part of the industry comes under the amount of State control envisaged in the Bill.
The record of some of the other nationalised industries in this field is anything but good. I am not suggesting that in private industry it is always first class, but with nationalised industries it is very difficult to get any kind of decision. This is one of the principal fears, at least of the insurance industry, when claims are made and not settled promptly, as could well be the case at least initially when this Board is set up.
The other point which has been made almost interminably in this and
other fields is the question of delivery dates or, in the case of ship repairing, of repair dates. Whenever one goes abroad on business, as I do from time to time, one hears the cri de coeur almost hurled at one, "What are you doing about your delivery dates?" This is not confined to the present Government. It happened when those of us who sit upon these Benches were in Government, so I am not

281
making any kind of a Party point here. At present, the smaller ship repairing companies at least owe their reputation to the fact that repairs are carried out promptly, efficiently and with the minimum amount of interference from boards of any kind. But as one looks at this dismal Bill one wonders whether this happy situation will continue.
The other point is the question of those who are going into the ship repairing and shipbuilding industry—the trainees. What kind of future is there for them under this rather shaky kind of Board which has been set up? One knows very little about it at the moment. There does not seem to have been very much discussion about it before the Bill was brought before another place. As has been said previously I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will make an admirable chairman, but he cannot carry everything on his shoulders, and in these very grave times it is not altogether easy to find people of considerable business experience who can really know sufficient about the industry of shipbuilding and ship repairing to be able to devote the required expertise to it.
So finally I would make this plea to the other place. Of course they will argue, or they are likely to argue, that they have a mandate—we have heard much about this word—for bringing these Bills into law. Incidentally, I cannot remember a Session of Parliament when we have had about six controversial Bills in one Session guillotined at both ends. It is all very well noble Lords opposite and others criticising the Industrial Relations Bill, which I admit had its critical points. I know, I sat through a great deal of it day and night in your Lordships' House; and one can speak in similar terms about the London Government Bill. But they were the only controversial Bills in those particular Sessions. As my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said earlier, a very large amount of time was given in both Houses for discussion on those Bills despite the use of the guillotine in the other place. But here we have had the very minimum of time to discuss these Bills. I do not believe that that is the fault of noble Lords opposite. Obviously they are in the hands of the other place and it is a convention that controversial legislation begins in the other place, and that is right.
282
But it does not make the task, or the reputation, of this House any easier to handle if we are to bow to every whim of the other place regarding legislation which has been brought in and which is not in the public interest. Many of the people who are working in these industries do not come from titled families. They are people of humble means, but they work for firms in which father, grandfather, and in some instances generations before them have worked. Therefore, in these companies there is enormous loyalty on all sides. It is not as if industrial unrest is rife in these companies.
So I end with these words, my Lords. Why make these quite extraordinary changes at a time when the country is desperately short of cash? Why not listen to those in the industry who know best, and why not take examples of some of the other State controlled industries which are not exactly on firm feet at this time? I only hope that when they get to the other place these Amendments are very carefully probed. They are not in the main Party political Amendments: they are Amendments of common sense, and they are Amendments which the vast majority of the people in this country want to see carried.
7.36 p.m.
Lord WARDINGTON: My Lords, unfortunately I was away last week and was not able to take part in any of the debates at the Report stage. This evening my main concern, like that of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, is the practicality of using the Stock Exchange price as a basis for compensation. I should like to reiterate what I said in the Committee stage; namely, that the price in the Stock Exchange represents the price at which a small number of shares will change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller. It also represents the whole of the business, the totality of the assets, and it does not seek to show or reflect the performance of any one division or subsidiary, except in very exceptional circumstances.
I used the phrase, "the totality of the assets", but in almost all cases the Stock Exchange price is at a discount to the assets in that it obtains a very valuable quality in addition, that of market-ability, and that is worth a great deal when

283
one is trading between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I read that last week the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, ended one remark by saying:
"Under the Bill, we are seeking to define an objective value for shares…"—[Official Report, 3/11/76; cols. 1352–3.]
On 20th October he said, as reported at column 1437 of the Official Report:
"the Stock Exchange market is an independent and objective means of assessing the work of a company at any given time."
I think it is between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but there is only one company quoted in this instance—only one. All the rest, all the other 42, have to be a notional price based on a Stock Exchange price. I think that it is impossible to say that a notional price is objective. How can it be when it is subject to so many influences? The object of these many Amendments that have been inserted in the Bill is to make the compensation fairer to those corporate shareholders—they are corporate share-holders in most cases—and to make it more workable.
I have been asking myself, what is a notional price? We do not have it in the Stock Exchange. There is no such thing. There is "the" price. The only time I can think of using a notional price is when I am making an offer for sale to the public. I, so to speak, make a guess as to what price I would be able to put on the company's shares that would be attractive to the public at that particular time. This assessment, this guess, is, and always has been, subject to fashion. In 1973 the fashion was to base one's guess on a profits-earning ratio and to project that forward. In this current year, as we saw in August, the fashion has been for new issues to be dividend-orientated.
In an offer for sale, as I have illustrated, the seller is a willing seller
and the price has to be pitched attractively enough to bring in buyers so that they are willing buyers. It may be, therefore, that this notional price, which subsequently be-comes a real price, has to be at a small discount in order to attract subscriptions from the public. These shares are not offered to a corporate shareholder: they are offered to the public at large, to hundreds and maybe thousands of shareholders, none of whom takes up a
284
large amount of shares. If they were being bought by any one buyer, then the bid price would be infinitely greater and would be based on assets. My Lords, if the Government can indicate that they are prepared to acknowledge this position by accepting the Amendments that have been put into the Bill, then I for one would feel very much happier. It would be easier to administer and it would be fairer to all. As my noble friend Lord Selsdon said 10 days ago, one has to be fair to the taxpayer as well as to the shareholder.
I have already mentioned the totally different price at which Teacher's stood before they were bid for by Allied Breweries some three weeks ago—190 pence before the bid and 380 pence after the bid. The assets in this case were being acquired, and therefore they had to be paid for. It is interesting to note that after the three-weeks' fall in markets that we have been experiencing the price of Teacher's today is 380 pence. it is the same. That is because in the case of a take-over it is based on assets. In the last 10 days we have seen Lyons disposing of their hotels, and the figure is totally unrelated to price in the market. It is based on assets. Indeed, in this case it is based on book cost; and one might perhaps say that they were not what one would usually describe as a willing seller.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred earlier to unquoted shares always commanding a price slightly lower than they would have done had they been quoted. I should like to put an alternative view on this, which is that it is lower when it is being offered in part to the public at large but it is not necessarily lower when it is being bought by one particular buyer. I am not trying to increase the bids to be made in total by the Government to the shareholders, but I am trying to arrive at a fair basis of calculation of compensation, both to the companies concerned and to the taxpayer, and something that arbitrators will be able to find totally workable. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept some of the Amendments that we have put in.
7.46 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Wardington will forgive me if I do not follow him on the particular topic that he has been

285
discussing with such practical experience. During the Second Reading debate, when I addressed your Lordships, I covered a number of points, but the point about which I felt most strongly was the effect of nationalisation on the boards of companies to be nationalised, and before I sit down I want to say a few words further about that. During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill I have concentrated my contributions largely on the relation-ships between the Corporations and the two great companies, Harland and Wolff, shipbuilders, and Short Brothers and Harland, aircraft manufacturers, in Northern Ireland. I certainly do not want to repeat the great mass of detail that was gone into then, but I should like to round off the arguments for the importance of the relationship between those companies which are outside the scope of this Bill and the Corporations.
Despite everything that has been said from the Government Bench on the importance, as they saw it, of very close association with the Corporations; despite the very sympathetic expression by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, on what the objectives should he in regard to those companies; despite, indeed, the fact that the Government themselves introduced an Amendment, which is now in the Bill, which widened the scope of the consultations between the Corporations and the companies left out, the fact remains that the most important Amendment of all that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough (who I see is not here this afternoon) and myself moved was in fact resisted, and it was inserted into the Bill where it now stands only as a result of a Division and a decision by your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, if he will allow me to say so, has really performed a remarkable feat of steering his way through an enormous number of complicated Amendments and an immense amount of paper which was provided for him as brief, and I am not surprised that he had to tie himself fairly rigidly to his brief and give himself little latitude for moving one way or the other. I say that in order that he may not think that I am being critical of his activities and his efforts in what I am going to say now, but I am critical of two main things. Firstly—and I know many of your Lordships will agree with me—there is
286
the very short time that has been allowed between the various stages to deal with Amendments, to have negotiations and discussions and to get them right. There really has not been time, and it must have been absolutely intolerable for the officials and draftsmen who have been working to try to get them right. One is bound to ask the question, therefore: Who in fact have been the advisers of Ministers on (shall we say?) the shipbuilding side of the Bill? I am quite sure that their advisers and the draftsmen have done their work with the utmost care and the utmost loyalty, but have they been allowed to advise and draft from the firm basis of practical experience in the industries concerned? I am forced to the conclusion that practical experience and conclusions based on experience have not always been the main planks for decisions taken and put into the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree with me that there has been any amount of practical experience available for him to draw upon if he so wanted.
I cannot speak for the aerospace industry and what I am going to say now will be based primarily on the ship-building industry; but ever since the Second World War there has been a growing movement and desire in the shipbuilding industry to become not merely of a collection of isolated companies but a compact United Kingdom industry. That movement was pushed ahead by the Geddes Report a few years ago with the result that today there is a very active, experienced and authoritative central organisation for the industry—indeed, for both industries.
This, to my mind, is important because it recognises the essential fact of the interdependence these days of industry and Government. You cannot get away from that. The central organisation is absolutely necessary in welding the industry into a compact whole. If we look at the Northern Ireland aspect of the shipbuilding industry, it is an essential part of the United Kingdom industry. It has become so. If I may, I will illustrate that point. If your Lordships were to go to Belfast and look at that shipyard, you would see a remarkable piece of investment second to none in Europe. The first tranche of that investment was originally started in 1969 or 1970.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, is not the noble Viscount making a Second Reading speech at this moment?
Viscount ROCHDALE: I hope not, my Lords. I appreciate the noble Lord's intervention. I am going to be very brief. I am illustrating a point. What I was about to say was that this investment came essentially not from Northern Ireland but from Westminster as a result of a recommendation from the then Shipbuilding Industry Board. They recognised that they were making that investment in Belfast as a part of the industry as a whole.
This Bill—and it has become very clear as we have gone through its various stages—has had the effect of carrying out what may be regarded as a surgical operation and has cut off an important limb of the main body, an operation which is seldom good for either side. During the passage of the Bill in another place, they recognised at the very last minute that something will be necessary and (to carry the analogy a shade further) they put on a piece of plaster to try to hold together as best it could the limb to the main body. Our Amendments which we have put down and discussed at some length in this House have merely had the intention of trying to strengthen that plaster in order to keep the two as closely knit together as possible.
I know that any analogy like that may be an over-simplification. I realise that there are political and other problems which have prevented the Government from including these companies under the aegis of the two Corporations; but the main argument that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put forward has been the question of impending devolution to Northern Ireland. I would remind him that the investment I talked about in 1969/70 came from Westminster at a time when there was more or less complete devolution in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I feel that the argument of devolution does not really bear too close a study. And if it were a good argument why was it not applied to Scotland? All that I would say on that is that I hope very much that further study of the Amendment that has now been put into the Bill will reveal that it has really good commonsense and that it will be allowed to remain in.
288
I come finally to the other point that I want to make: the effect of nationalisation on the boards of the operating companies, due to—and I use this word with some hesitation—interference from the Secretary of State. This, to my mind, raises a very serious danger. There is a danger of constraint on the boards of companies, the boards which in my Second Reading speech I likened to the heart of the body but which I call now the power-house of the company. Constraint is never helpful to anything. It reduces confidence in the board, it reduces momentum, it reduces or may reduce the quality of performance and the success, therefore, of the undertaking. One can see several examples of this recently in nationalised industries.
But, my Lords, I take the view that the effect of that constraint is not inevitable. I have been critical of the Bill. I do not like it. But there is one good thing in the Bill, if we must have it; and that is the insertion, the inter-position, of the Corporations between the Secretary of State and the companies. That, I think, is very good and it is particularly good because in the Bill it says that the Corporations have to exercise the largest degree of decentralisation of management decision-taking. That can be a saving grace for the operation of the Bill but it will create great difficulties for the chairmen of the Corporations if they are to take full advantage of that. The chairmen and the chief executives will have a great many problems to deal with—and not only ordinary economic and commercial problems.
Those problems will be intensified and come to them in a stronger way than ever, whether from the Secretary of State, from Parliament or, perhaps more importantly and more difficult to resist, from public opinion. The natural conesquence of those pressures on the chairmen and the chief executives will be an instinctive thought to exercise tighter control over their subsidiaries. Difficult as it may be for them, I hope they will resist those pressures. If I am going too far in suggesting that they should try to behave rather as servants than masters of the subsidiaries, then I would say to them: "Try and drive your subsidiaries with the lightest possible rein. That is the way you will most likely make the greatest success of the very difficult job that has been entrusted to you".

289
I said that I did not like the Bill; but if, for one moment, one forgets the political argument and pictures oneself walking around some of these yards, seeing the men working, the investments there and all the ambitious intentions, efforts and high hopes, one comes back to the inevitable decision that, dislike the Bill as one does, it has to be made to succeed for the benefit of the industries, of all who work in them, and of the economy of this country. That places great responsibilities on the chairmen of the Corporations, and I wish them well.
8.2 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to follow on from what my noble friend Lord Rochdale and my noble friend Lord Selsdon have said. It seems to me that we have to accept this Bill. I suppose it is too faint a hope to think the other place will not ruin it. In its present form, it is probably acceptable in a way. But, come what may, we shall be lucky if we escape this public ownership project altogether.
I should like to address my thoughts to how it might be put into effect with particular reference to how the management are treated and encouraged. This is the key. My noble friend Lord Selsdon said that what we require for success is an entrepreneurial spirit which has been sadly lacking in all the nationalised industries so far. He said that we want the type of organisation in which people are selling aeroplanes that have not flown yet. It is that attitude of mind which somehow must be given freedom to develop. I am sure that is what my noble friend Lord Rochdale was saying in another way.
It seems to me that for one reason or another the nationalised industries that we have at the moment are not functioning in that way at all, and have not done so more or less from the beginning. I am sure that when the Labour Party came into power in 1945 there were many people, particularly in the other place and perhaps one or two here, who had brave hopes of a new way of doing things. It was the early days; there were not all that number of nationalised industries around the world, apart from the other side of what is now the Iron Curtain, and they thought that this was going to
290
be a splendid way of doing things for the benefit of everybody. Somehow that has not worked. It is a great pity. Some of the nationalised industries I personally think we all accept must stay nationalised, like the coal mines and the railways, to mention two.
Having sat through many of the debates on this Bill—though not as many as I should have done—I believe that it is incumbent on this Government, having launched again into this nationalisation theme based on theories which in these modern times are suspect, to analyse where they have gone wrong in the past. They never seem to have done that. I do not think that I have ever heard of consultants being called in to see where the Secretaries of State have made wrong decisions. It is at the Secretary of State and senior civil servant level that we need to have the investigation conducted, not further down the tree.
I am sure that people do their level best in the nationalised industries. But they lack the spark of enthusiasm which comes from the competitive world of free enterprise. It has been said in the interchange at the beginning of these discussions that it is a perfectly good competitive world because we are competing with other countries. This is absolutely true. If this nationalised organisation is subjected to the same pressures from which, we understand, very many chairmen of nationalised industries—such as, for example, Sir Richard Marsh—in the recent past have suffered, the organisation will not get off the ground and compete in world markets. The country cannot afford that at this point in time. With the very best intentions I suggest to the Government that whatever happens to this Bill, however much goes through—and I think in some ways it must because of the uncertainties, because of the position of those shipbuilding firms still left in it—they must start to be self-critical and see how the management at Government level can be adjusted to provide the spark that has been missing in all the other nationalised industries.
8.7 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the fact that the rather unpredictable and unexpected speed with which this Bill moved in its

291
final stages caught me unawares. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, made quite a long speech, but I cannot reply to it as I was not here. Nor am I given the opportunity to comment on Lord Selsdon's many "told to the children about the City" speeches to which we listened during long nights. Nor do I regard the Third Reading of a Bill as a suitable occasion on which to debate generally the issues of nationalisation. I would only say that there have been countless investigations, and consultants have been endlessly called in.
I rise for only one purpose; that is, to refer to what I regard as one of the most offensive leaders in The Times about my noble friend Lord Beswick. There has subsequently been one which has tried to redress the balance slightly. I will not repeat the remarks they originally made, but they suggested that my noble friend was unfitted for the post. It is very easy for a secret newspaper—because we never know who writes the leaders—to make comments of this kind, and it is difficult to reply to them. To suggest that my noble friend Lord Beswick, who is uniquely familiar with the aviation industry, is unfitted in the terms they used and which I will not repeat, caused not only great personal offence to me but considerable sorrow to my noble friend Lord Beswick, who is well known to your Lordships and also to many people in the aircraft and aviation industry. Almost uniquely he has been fitting himself throughout his life for this particular post.
He joined the RAF in 1940. He served in Transport Command in the days when it began to move into BOAC. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, then Geoffrey de Freitas. He became Under-Secretary to the Minister of Civil Aviation in 1950. He has been active all his working life with his interests in the aviation industry. He has been vice-president of BALPA, and he has been chairman of the Labour Party Aviation Committee. I have often discussed aviation with him and I know of no one with a greater devotion to the industry and the purposes of the industry.
I would rebut the concept that every man who runs a nationalised industry must automatically have had managerial
292
experience in industry. I have had considerable experience in both, and I know people who have come straight out of the public service—and I could mention many of them—who have been great successes in running industries. Lastly he has spent the last few years as special adviser to Sir George Edwards and has a strong commitment as one of those who believe in Concorde and who contributed to its survival. I am sorry to speak so strongly. I know your Lordships are generous. Many of you know my noble friend Lord Beswick. I only hope that my remarks—though I doubt it—will reach the Press, but I felt that my noble friend had been defamed in a way that made it my obligation to set right.
8.11 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks which put the balance right on this issue. I intervene briefly to take up one point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, on behalf of the Liberal Party earlier in the debate. It was a remark which I felt was unfortunate in a debate which has been marked by extreme moderation of speeches from the other side, something which has heartened me a good deal at this final stage of the Bill's progress. The noble Earl said that the Bill had been steamrollered through the House of Commons with the use of the guillotine. He added that in those circumstances he hoped that your Lordship's House would not only make the Amendments but would insist on them if the Commons were to reject them. That is unfortunate, because the real facts are beyond doubt. The House of Commons spent 186 hours on this Bill. In Committee there were 58 sittings lasting from December to June. It was only at a late stage that the guillotine was introduced on the Bill in the Commons. I believe it is unfortunate, with the dangers of the present situation—that is, a danger of confrontation between the two Chambers—to give the impression that in some way this Bill was steamrollered through the other place. It just is not the case, based on those figures.
It may be said that nevertheless the situation ended there with some clauses not being discussed. But here we are up against a fact of Parliamentary life; namely, that the consumption of time is

293
used as a weapon in the House of Commons, something which I have deplored and which the Chairmen of the Procedures Committee in the House of Commons have tried for a long time to bring to an end. However, my figures show a clear situation in which it was obviously the intention of the Opposition in the Commons to consume time in order to make this Bill look disreputable and disgraced by inadequate Parliamentary discussion. And of course the Party opposite took part in that. I do not blame them; it is still a part of Parliamentary tactics. But it is improper, in my view, then to come back and pretend innocence and say that because of the inadequacies of the other place we must now not only pass but insist on Amendments which they never had a chance to discuss. This was a point deliberately decided upon as tactics by the Opposition in the Commons: to prolong the discussion beyond what is reasonable within the limits which I have described—58 Committee sittings lasting from December to June. It was a tactic to make this Bill look as bad as possible by the time it left the Commons. It is then hard for that same Opposition to come here and say they are innocent and we must stand by everything they do because the Commons did not do their work adequately.
My Lords, the danger we are running into is that of a confrontation between the two Houses. I would deplore this very strongly, if only because this is a weak situation. It is not the case that this was an inadequately discussed Bill in the Commons, and it would be a bad case on which to start some kind of confrontation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl's remarks, which he may have made in the heat of the moment, will not be taken at their face value. It is not true that the Bill was steamrollered and it should not follow, I hope, in those circumstances that this House should both make and insist upon Amendments. My final point—
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that my remarks were not made in the heat of the moment, but after much thought.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Well, if they were I ask him again to study the figures I have given. The noble Earl was not in the Chamber when I gave them. There
294
were 186 hours of discussion in the other place, and 58 sittings of the Committee lasting from December to June. It was only very late after that that the guillotine was introduced. The point I forgot to make was that this is the longest number of Committee sittings of any Bill. So it really is not the case that this is a Bill which was steamrollered through under the guillotine.
Finally, my Lords, I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said—perhaps he will interrupt me after I make the point—when he listed a number of Amendments which are now being made by this Chamber. I ask him to consider the fact that a number of those were strongly and adequately discussed in the other place. I refer to the Amendments dealing with the form of compensation, those with ship repairing and certainly those, perhaps not in their precise form but in the spirit of the Amendments, about industrial relations. They were three of his half dozen Amendments. I again urge that we keep our language and our position vis-à-vis the other Chamber moderate in the final stages of this Bill.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for interrupting before he sits down, because I am sure he would not want to mislead the House? He used the words "longest sittings".
Lord NORTHFIELD: With respect I did not.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: Yes, my Lords, he did. For example, the Housing and Finance Act, with the Labour Party in Opposition, got 50 per cent. more debating time.
Lord NORTHFIELD: That does not detract from my point. It was the greatest number of sittings on any Bill. So this would hardly be a case for a blanket statement that this is a Bill that has been steamrollered with a guillotine through the House of Commons, which is what the noble Lord said.
8.17 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will forgive me, I do not want to go into the question of what was happening in another place,

295
but to come to the Motion here, the Question "That this Bill do now pass". We are coming towards the end of a long debate which in itself comes at the end of a long discussion in your Lordships' House. I should not be surprised if those noble Lords who have lasted the course hope that it will finish soon—and so do I. First, I join the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in his opening speech in offering our congratulations and thanks to the noble Lords on the opposite Front Bench. They had a rather rough passage. They kept a steady course, but I sometimes used to wish that they might be blown off it by the reasoned arguments from this side. At any rate, they were always courteous and helpful. Even if they tended to give us the same replies, which left one with the vague impression that sometimes they had not had time to think of the arguments advanced from this side, nevertheless they did their job well. I particularly want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has carried a heavy burden indeed.
My Lords, I have not been long in politics. This is the first time I have ever sat through a major Bill from beginning to end. It is an experience which I have found very depressing. I have spent most of my working life in business. I kept thinking how in business one would try to settle the structure of two great industrial corporations. One cannot follow the analogy completely, but I think of the members on the Government Front Bench more or less as the executive directors, who have all the backroom boys behind them and who come along with an organised plan which they offer to the board. Noble Lords on this side are like the outside directors whose job is to probe and to criticise, not for the sake of criticising but for the sake perhaps of testing whether the executive directors have really thought the plan through. In exchanges of that kind in a business there is a very free interchange. Of course the executive directors are keen on their own plan. But if they are any good they are willing to think carefully about suggestions that are made from outside by the non-executive directors and to wonder whether they themselves have been too inward-looking because they have been working on the scheme for so long.
296
Then there is the added difficulty—and this was, of course, a very controversial Bill—that it was difficult, in many of the Amendments, to avoid some Party political interest. That is unavoidable in a Bill of this kind. It produces the unfortunate result, as I see it, that the Government automatically distrust any Amendment coming from the other side and, in turn, the other side distrust any explanation which is given by the Government. Even the several-times-injected sound advice by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not appear to make any impression upon the Government Front Bench.
Anyway, my Lords, we finally managed to discuss a great number of what I think were very useful Amendments. I shall not go through them: the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has already gone through quite a lot of them. I will only say something about the Amendments that actually removed from the Bill substantial parts of the industries it was proposed to nationalise. First, I suppose, I ought to mention the Amendment which we produced from these Benches to exclude the aircraft industry. That was not intended—and I did my best to make it clear—as a challenge to another place. We thought it was a good example, and indeed it has been supported today by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, of where the same effect could have been achieved without nationalisation. I am bound to say that when I introduced the argument for the second time on Report, I was quite prepared for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to say: "That is all very well, but we have discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and with the companies concerned, and we think you are wrong. We do not think they would come together without nationalisation". But the noble Lord did not say that, and because of that, I inferred that he thought it might have been possible. I accept that it is the Government's policy to go ahead with nationalisation, so the fact that it is possible to do that without nationalisation may not have cut much ice with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. At any rate, it slightly tended to confirm my belief that there was something in the argument I put forward; but I do want to repeat that it was not put forward with the idea of confronting another place.

297
We made it quite clear we felt that in the country's present position there was a case for the Government to look again at a commitment they had entered into two years ago in quite different circumstances. We still think there is any opportunity for the Government to look at the matter again. There are two Amendments Which have been sent to another place in regard to ship repairing and to naval shipbuilders, where the same considerations apply. I hope that noble Lords here, as well as the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has influence in these matters, will suggest to colleagues in another place that this matter really ought to be reconsidered. It would be tragic if the Government decided to send these Amendments back to us and then were finally compelled, as a result of discussions that are now going on with the IMF and others, to do something of that kind. I do not want to see them forced to do it. I should like to see them take the decision themselves to postpone for some time the achievement of this wish of theirs.
During our discussions on this Bill, I do understand the frustrations of noble Lords opposite when we are debating Amendments and they see the serried ranks on the Conservative Benches and the not-quite-so-serried ranks on our Benches, and they say, "Where are we?" I think they have sometimes been very noble in going into the Division Lobbies when they might just as well say, "Let it go". I think that perhaps they must feel, as all of us do from time to time, rather tired of sitting down, and look forward to a little walk to restore the circulation. But, on the other hand, I hope that noble Lords opposite will also understand the frustration that we feel on this side of the House; the frustration that arises from the fact that we have worked hard on this Bill and have put a great deal into these Amendments, only to be told that there is going to be so little time in another place that many of them will not be able to be considered at all. I am not going to assume that all, or any of them, will not be accepted: I hope many of them will be. But there is a general feeling that those which are not discussed because of lack of time are not likely to be accepted, and I therefore hope that noble Lords opposite will understand our frustration in that respect.
298
In this connection I should like to ask one question, which I know the noble Lord cannot answer: is it not possible that in circumstances which have arisen—and I am not going to argue with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, as to just how they have arisen—as to the extreme shortage of time, for the Government to move a Motion in another place and here that these Bills should be carried over into the next Session, to give us a little more time? That is quite often done in the case of Private Bills, and I have been told there is no constitutional objection to its being done with Public Bills. I wonder whether noble Lords would like to consult their right honourable friends in another place as to whether that could not be done, just to give us a little more time—it does not need very much more time—to consider these Amendments, because some of them are very valuable indeed and it seems to me it is not necessarily the most important of the Amendments that will be considered.
I do not think I ought to keep your Lordships any longer but, looking back on this long discussion, I have wondered, I must confess, whether a Bill of this complexity would not have been more effectively discussed if it had been committed to a Select Committee upstairs. I know that is not a very popular view, but one great advantage of doing that, of course, would be that the composition of a Select Committee could be so arranged as to more correctly balance the interests of the Parties. Apart from that, a Bill with such a complicated structure and involving such complicated technical problems would have been much better discussed, I should have thought, in a rather less formal atmosphere and in a rather smaller company of people than we have in the Whole House. It only remains for me to say that if this Bill goes through—and I see no chance that it will not—then I must join with other noble Lords in wishing these two industries well. In our own way, we must all do what we can to make them a success.
In conclusion, I should like to acknowledge appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I did not see the article to which he very rightly took exception. We on these Benches have always had great admiration and, if I may say so, affection for the noble Lord,

299
Lord Beswick, and I am extremely sorry to hear that anything which was said outside has caused him offence. I think I can safely say that I have never heard a word in your Lordships' House that would have caused him any offence at all.
8.29 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, at this point in the evening and at this stage of the Bill, I have no intention of speaking for more than a short time. I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to two or three points only; but before doing that I should like to join my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley in thanking those who have helped us on these Benches during the Bill, and also in expressing appreciation to Ministers for their personal efforts at the Dispatch Box. It is not altogether surprising that one Minister should have dropped out in the later stages because he lost his voice; and we hope he will very soon recover it.
As regards the Amendments which deleted the ship repairing part of the Bill, that is a change which has already been widely accepted. The acclamation has come from many quarters, including the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the leading article in the Sunday Times two days ago. In the ship repairing areas of the country it is also known to make good sense. The Government would he wise to accept those Amendments and, I believe, they will certainly find it difficult to muster a majority in another place to try to overturn the proposals.
Last week during the Report stage I referred to the latest nationalisation proposals emanating from the Labour Party's National Executive Committee; namely, those on selected banks and insurance companies. I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister had described that as an electoral albatross. I pointed out that it was the second albatross, the first being this Bill, and the Government would discover that at the by-election. It took only two or three days for me to be proved correct in that. When I said it I thought I detected from the Benches opposite some derisory noises—or the nearest your Lordships' House ever gets to making derisory noises—but I think I can now
300
Say that the prophecy was not a wild one.
As my noble friends have said during the debate this evening, this is an irrelevant and expensive Bill for the country. The IMF and the countries who are lending us money must be perplexed by the Government's priorities. Probably the one action which the Government could take which overnight would change the situation in their eyes would be to drop this Bill. The second best would be to accept our Amendments to it. In our debates today my noble friends have discussed proposals in the Bill and the changes made and I will not go over the main subjects again. But there are two matters of unfinished business to which I should like to draw attention. In the shipbuilding area, first, on the question of the location of the headquarters of the new Corporation.
During the Committee stage on 18th October I pointed out that it had still not been decided, although British Shipbuilders was supposed to carry out all kinds of activities as soon as the Bill was enacted: they were to be in operation; taking decisions; carrying out a review; submitting a report, all within a few weeks of the enactment of this Bill. But it was still not known in what part of the country the Shipbuilders Corporation's head office was to be, and so far as I know it is still not known. I have seen no announcement. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in column 941 on 18th October, said that he accepted that it was desirable that this information should be known before the Bill left your Lordships' House. It is leaving your Lordships' House tonight. It seems extraordinary that at this stage nothing should have been announced and I would ask the noble Lord when he winds up whether he can tell us about a decision on this subject.
The second matter is the restructuring of the shipbuilding industry. The word "restructuring" is perhaps a euphemism for the necessary rationalisation and the redundancies which are bound to follow. The Government have accepted that there must be a reduction in the total workforce in the shipbuilding industry, especially in the very difficult world situation today, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, confirmed today and repeated that the Government expected the Corporation

301
to take the decisions in this difficult field. I ask now: when do the Government expect it to become known where the shedding of labour is going to take place and where the closures are to be? In what parts of the country is this to happen? The sooner this is known the sooner action to ameliorate the situation can be put in hand—to consider alternative jobs, the possibility of other industry coming in and the associated retraining schemes.
The Government are leaving the initiative on restructuring the industry to the new Corporation, British Shipbuilders; but will they leave to the Corporation the initiative to carry out its decisions in this field? We on these Benches are concerned to promote the best interests of the British aircraft industry and the British shipbuilding industry. Of course their situations are entirely different. We do not think that nationalisation is the right solution, but we have done our best to improve the Bill which we were able to start discussing in this House only six weeks ago.
8.35 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, could I start by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the three noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench for their kind remarks about myself and my noble friends, and on behalf of my noble friends express thanks for what was said, despite a slightly barbed comment in the tail of the compliments paid to us by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I should also like to thank three of my noble friends who have given me such a great deal of assistance. It would not have been possible for me to do the work I have been able to do in my Ministerial capacity but for the enormous help and support which I have been given on this Bill by my noble friends in your Lordships' House. I am very grateful, too, for the kind way in which noble Lords opposite, and, indeed, on all sides of the House, have responded to us personally, although I expect they have not always liked everything which we felt it necessary to say to them.
May I also associate myself further with what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said about my noble friend Lord Beswick. Of course, my noble friend was Minister
302
of State in the Department of Industry before I was made a junior Minister in that Department. I know from experience the close association my noble friend had with the aircraft industry in his Ministerial role as well as all the other capacities mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shackleton.
My Lords, by the time this debate ends, which I can assure your Lordships will be in not more than a few minutes, we shall have spent some 78 hours debating this measure in your Lordships' House. I think it would be agreed that this amounts to a very thorough scrutiny. I should have thought that the most recent legislation comparable with this Bill, bringing a manufacturing industry into public ownership, is the Iron and Steel Act 1967. Your Lordships' House spent only 25 hours discussing that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, gave some interesting analogies with the industrial relations legislation and the length of time that took in your Lordships' House. He did not tell us how many of the 136 Divisions which I understand took place were carried against the then Conservative Government. That statistic might have been useful if we were genuinely to compare the amount of time taken on that measure with the Bill we are discussing tonight.
I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carr, on a detailed discussion of all the Amendments passed. It is my contention that a great deal of time has already been spent on that. I should like to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the headquarters of British Shipbuilders. He reminded your Lordships of the remark I made, on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, about the desirability of knowing where the headquarters was to be. I hold the view that it would be desirable, but I regret it has not been possible to let your Lordships' House know where the location is to be. As I said then, and would repeat, the Government are committed to ensuring that the headquarters of British Shipbuilders should be in an assisted area with traditional shipbuilding. The matter has been receiving full consideration and an announcement about the choice of location will be made in the near future. I apologise to noble Lords opposite that

303
I am not able to go any further than that before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
In coming to consider in more detail just how we have spent our time on this measure—and in this I am following some of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, made in opening this debate—I should first like to point out that the Government cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be accused of taking up time by tabling Government Amendments. Out of 248 Amendments tabled in Committee only two were put down by the Government, and out of 204 tabled on Report only 21 were put down by the Government—mainly in response to undertakings given by myself and my noble friends during the Committee stage. These figures clearly show that most of the time we spent was taken up with points which noble Lords opposite thought it important to raise.
During the Bill's passage frequent reference has been made to the need for full debate because discussion in another place was curtailed. A comparison between the subjects and Amendments considered both here and in another place does, to say the least, throw some doubt on that assertion. If we look at the very important policy isues which this Bill raises, and if we look at Amendments on minor technical points or on questions which an impartial observer would consider of no real significance, we find there are many instances where in this House, as my noble friend Lord Northfield said, we have simply gone over ground which was covered more than fully in another place.
I should like to turn, first, to our debates on some of the far-reaching issues which this Bill covers. I regret that, having looked again at some of the reports of the debates in another place, I have to say that in many instances your Lordships simply repeated arguments which had already been fully put in another place. There are a number of examples that I could mention, but the subject of industrial democracy probably provides the best illustration. Of course, we regard this as one of the key features in the Bill. It was debated for, at the very least, five and a half hours in Committee in another place, for nearly two
304
hours on Report in another place, for five and a half hours in Committee here, and for one and a half hours on Report in your Lordships' House. Each time, inevitably, I and my noble friends answering Amendments were accused of putting forward the same arguments as had been put forward on other occasions. But I think it would be fair to put it on record that, in speaking to the Amendments, noble Lords opposite put forward very much the same points as were made by the Parties opposite in another place.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to some of the Amendments on more minor matters. We debated in Committee and on Report an Amendment to prescribe qualifications for membership of the Corporations. This is a relatively minor matter. An identical Amendment was discussed in Commons Committee at considerable length, and I have to say to your Lordships that in most of the debates in your Lordships' House the points were merely repeated. We did not move forward from the point where the argument had been left in Committee in another place, perhaps because the fact is that there was really no more to be said on this relatively minor point.
Perhaps I should mention one other example on a somewhat more technical point. Virtually the same Amendments were put down to Clause 35 in Committee in another place where they were debated for eight hours; in Committee in this House, where the debate lasted for about six hours, and again on Report, where discussion lasted for about an hour and a half. These Amendments deal with the mechanics of payment. Of course, I appreciate the interest that noble Lords opposite take in the compensation terms, but these Amendments do not even touch on any of the fundamental questions which our proposals raised.
My Lords, the result of all the time we have spent on this Bill has been to make a small number of useful technical changes and a number of major changes which would have effects of the most serious kind. The scope and nature of these changes make nonsense of the claim that the Bill has been merely revised. It has been altered in the most fundamental way. As introduced into your Lordships' House this Bill would have taken 145, 000 people

305
from the private to the public sector. The Bill, as it leaves this House, will, as a result of the Amendments on aircraft, warship building and ship repair, transfer only some 40, 000. While claiming to revise the Bill, your Lordships have quite simply wrecked it. For the sake of the industries concerned and for the people working in them, when it returns to another place the Government will set out to repair the damage done to the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
8.45 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (234) as first printed by the Lords. The Commons Reason is in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–5.]
Clause 3, page 5, line 5, after "scheme" insert ", in addition to the matters referred to in section (Right of tenants to purchase dwelling houses) of this Act, ".
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
".—(1) A transfer scheme shall include the statutory right for a tenant of a dwelling house which is managed by a new town corporation, as defined in this Act, to purchase that dwelling house provided he has been a tenant in a dwelling house managed by that new town corporation for the three years immediately preceding the purchase.
(2) The purchase price of a dwelling house mentioned in subsection (1)of this section shall be twenty per cent below the current market value with vacant possession, a further one per cent being allowed for each year of tenancy in that dwelling house up to a maximum of thirty years preceding the period of three years mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, provided always that the purchase price would not be below cost."
Clause 17, page 15, line 24, at end insert—
""dwelling house" means any building or part of a building occupied, or available for occupation, as a separate dwelling".
In the Title, line 4, after "obligations;" insert "to confer upon tenants of dwellings the interest in which is to be transferred, a right to purchase them".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because new clause (Right of tenants to purchase dwelling house) is irrelevant to the scheme of the Bill.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5. The Opposition have made it clear at every stage of the Bill's passage that they are not opposed in principle to this measure. The Bill represents an important step towards the normalisation of our older new towns, and as such the Party opposite have agreed that it is a useful and desirable piece of legislation.
However, a large part of our debate, both in this House and in another place, has been taken up with the discussion of a subject which, setting aside any intrinsic philosophical interest, is irrelevant to the purpose of this Bill. The New Towns (Amendment) Bill is concerned with the transfer of rented housing from new town corporations to districts councils. I would urge noble Lords opposite to recognise that this is the case and to acknowledge that there is no place in this Bill for providing, tenants with a statutory right to buy their houses. Indeed, I believe that the difficulty which the Opposition have experienced in drafting an effective set of Amendments on this subject bears witness to this fact; and I do not think that noble Lords will be surprised to learn that the Amendments are still defective in a number of respects.
It is clear from our discussion of the present set of Amendments, as well as from the debate on earlier Amendments of a similar purpose, that the Opposition's real concern is the Government's policy on sales as a whole—not just sales in the context of new town housing transfer schemes, or even, indeed, sales in new towns generally. I believe they would accept that. I can only repeat the Government's policy. While we think that sales will be right in places where the public sector stock is more than adequate to deal with pressing housing needs, we are nevertheless, as my honourable friend said in another place, opposed to the indiscriminate sale of publicly-owned

307
rented dwellings by way of a statutory right for tenants to buy. Sales are not in themselves a universal panacea. Our housing problems in this country are, regretfully, more complex, and the selling of council houses and new town rented dwellings represents only one aspect of the whole housing picture. That is a most important point.
In another place, when these Amendments were discussed it was suggested that the Government have not come clean on their policy and that these Amendments will bring the matter to a head. That is perhaps an understandable tactic, but it would be precipitate. The question of sales, as I have just indicated, must be considered in its wider context; that is why the Government are considering this question in parallel with the Review of Housing Policy. No one has put forward a convincing argument for jumping the gun on this one point. And, as we have said, we hope that the Review will be completed by the end of the year.
The Opposition have claimed to see in the Government's approach to sales a movement towards their own point of view. They attribute this to the pressure which they have been putting on us over this issue. Now we have, admittedly, decided to relax the ban on development corporations selling rented houses. I take this opportunity to report to your Lordships that three development corporations—Milton Keynes, Corby and Northampton—already have consents for the resumption of sales.
But this does not imply a new approach. It is rather a reflection of the Government's continuing policy, set out for local authorities in the Circular issued in 1974 soon after we returned to office. This advice has remained in force, and both our 1974 ban on new town sales and our recent relaxation of that ban are part and parcel of the same approach. It is circumstances which have changed, not our policy. We believe in owner occupation. But in our judgment a blanket approach is not the right answer. The critical factor—and we have stressed this time and time again—is housing need and it is on local housing needs, and on the particular local circumstances, that we shall decide any sales applications that may be submitted to us by the new towns in the period ahead.
308
The enactment of this Bill has been delayed by some months with the result that the date of implementation of the first transfer schemes has had to be postponed from 1st April 1977 to 1st April 1978. I see no purpose in apportioning blame for this. I know that the spokes-man for the Party opposite in another place wrote to The Times saying that his Party had had no desire to delay the Bill. I accept that statement. However, I hope your Lordships will agree with me that what we must all do now is to work together for a speedy and successful implementation of the transfer of rented housing in our older new towns.
It may well turn out that the date of 1st April 1978 for the first transfers will prove to be administratively more sensible and will afford more opportunity to ensure that the staff protection provisions can apply over a longer period of time. One thing is certain, however: We must now put our differences behind us and bring an end to uncertainty surrounding this Bill. We owe this, not least, to those staff in new towns who have been facing anxiety about their future for a longer time than any of us would have wished. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite will agree with me in this for I well recall her concern during our earlier debates for the welfare of staff likely to be affected by this measure. I urge your Lordships to accept the reasons given by the Commons and to restore this Bill to a state in which it can be enacted.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5.—(Baroness Stedman.)
8.53 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we greatly welcomed the moment last July when, whatever the noble Baroness says, Her Majesty's Government did in fact yield to the pressure that had been exerted on them, not only by us but chiefly by the council tenants for so many months, and by so many tenants. That was the moment when the Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of the new towns and authorised them to allow the sale of houses to their tenants. In effect, noble Lords opposite and their honourable and right honourable friends in another place lifted their ban and resumed the

309
Conservative policy that they had interrupted.
A circular in between does not alter the fact that the policy they are now pursuing is the policy which we started, and that was excellent. I should like to add, "Hurrah!" for Milton Keynes, Corby and Northampton. However, after the cheers and the welcome, I have to go on and to regret that, while the noble Baroness professes the conversion of herself and her Party to home ownership, her honourable and right honourable friends give effect to that policy in such half-hearted, partial and arbitrary ways. One would have thought—just to take one aspect—that when the savings on both current and capital expenditure were so significant in pursuing this policy, a Government that is in such straits as her own would have embraced home owner-ship far more wholeheartedly, as the electors certainly have done!
My noble friend Lord Sandys gave your Lordships figures on the Report stage which show that the average difference between the cost of tax relief on house purchase mortgages and maintaining council house subsidies is no less than £500 to £600 per house per annum. That is just on the current side. There is of course the benefit of the capital of the sale. Of course, owning their own home is what the majority of tenants aspire to. Many of them are now capable of doing that. One would think on those grounds alone, let alone the social policy, that Her Majesty's Government would take every opportunity to urge, to encourage and to provide for home ownership, for the sales of new town houses and council houses to occur wherever it was possible. Here, in the need for this Bill, was such an opportunity. I agree that it is only one of a number of opportunities.
Legislation, as the noble Baroness explained at much greater length at an earlier stage, is now needed to provide for blocks of houses and associated property to be transferred from the new town corporations which built and developed them to the district councils which are the democratically elected bodies which normally manage them. However, in the course of providing for this, Her Majesty's Government's concern has been with the administrative convenience and the wishes of those statutory landlords. That has had to take pre-
310
cedence over the known wishes of their tenants, whose interests these bodies were appointed and elected to serve. We regard that as a travesty.
However, this is not one of the Bills and sets of Commons Reasons that we are disposed to resist and to delay; I am sure that that will be a great relief to the noble Baroness. But we are greatly consoled in taking this heavy decision by a message which I received from one of the Parliamentary candidates only this morning in one of the Welsh new towns, Cwmbran. He was naturally interested to know what we were about to do. He pointed out to me—and this is the great consolation to us—that every month that goes by in his constituency, with council and new town tenants being denied the right to buy their homes by local and national Socialist policies, our Parliamentary and local government candidates are enabled to collect the support of more and more voters who might well otherwise be expected to continue to vote Labour. These are people who are already becoming disillusioned with the Government's economic policies and now know also that it is only doctinaire Socialist housing policies that stand between them and their most cherished dream of owning the home in which they live.
8.58 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I intervene only to say this, because I am a chairman of a new town. I do not want to intervene on the merits or demerits of this particular item, but I urge the noble Lord not to have some starry-eyed ideas about the effect of this proposal, which I welcome and am espousing in my own town, to sell houses. In the case of my new town, the last time round the number of houses actually sold could be counted on one hand. Secondly, even some of those were sold back to the Corporation in the end. Let him not think that this will bring some flood that is going to be released of a demand to own new town houses. There is no great pent-up demand in my new town, as the previous experience showed. Therefore may I ask the noble Lord to moderate slightly his enthusiasm.
I think that the better procedure, as we are doing in my new town, is to look at the issue of home ownership in every possible way—whether by increasing the opportunity for private development or by

311
equity sharing on the lines of the Birmingham example. Whatever it is, let us lead people into home ownership by every means we can—this Party is in favour of that—but please let us not imagine that there is a great pent-up demand to own, as of right, thousands of new town houses. It will be a small demand. I think that it should be met. I am delighted that we can meet the demand, but I plead with the noble Lord not to exaggerate it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord not to suppose that this is something which his Party is pioneering. This policy was adopted while I was in the Department of the Environment and the figure of people in new towns who want to own their own homes runs into thousands.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
9.1 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "rape" etc.]:
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved the following Amendment:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(3) A boy under the age of 14 years shall not be presumed to be incapable of the offence of rape only by reason of his age.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I referred in Committee last week to the matter which is the subject of this Amendment I said that it had been first considered during the Third Reading in another place, which occurred only a few weeks ago. I was not aware then that it had been discussed much more fully in Standing Committee as long ago as 31st March. This Amendment, therefore, is identical to the one which was moved in Standing Committee at that time.
The wording of the Amendment is self-explanatory. Its purpose is to rectify a self-evident nonsense of the kind that brings the law into disrepute. I am sure we all agree that the law should be brought into disrepute as infrequently as possible. Its coincidental effect, if agreed to, would be to bring English law on this
312
subject into line with Scottish law. I do not normally subscribe to the assertion that the Scots are habitually more pragmatic, more commonsensical and more down to earth than the English, but I am bound to say that in this instance it is hard to deny.
For any noble Lord who may be unclear about what I mean, let me quote from the 1961 edition of Professor Glanville Williams's work on criminal law. He writes:
"By a strange rule, a boy under 14 cannot be convicted of rape, or assault with intent to rape, or unlawful sexual intercourse, being irrebuttably presumed by law to be physically incapable ".
The mover of the Amendment in another place went on to say that 100 witnesses could be brought to prove that the boy had had sexual intercourse, and the boy could admit it, but nevertheless the law would say that he had not had sexual intercourse because the law believes, or behaves as though it believes, that he could not. This is a case where the law is flying straight in the face of common sense and the facts of life. Why should the law make a presumption that is not in accordance with biological fact?
Clearly the assumption underlying the present law is ridiculous and is recognised as such by anybody with any experience of life. However, the Amendment was defeated in another place on the basis of three main arguments, so far as I interpret them. The first argument, which was advanced by an honourable and learned Member, was that the law would have been amended a long time ago if it had been thought to be wholly unsatisfactory. No doubt a long time ago, and even as recently as a few years ago, there may well have been nothing very much to worry about, but things have changed. There is first—I concede that this is a minor point—the slightly earlier onset of puberty to take into account. Of far more importance is the growing incidence of violence in our society.
One of the forms that this increasing violence takes is, unhappily, the exceptionally distasteful and unpleasant one of gang rape: I forbear to use the more forceful colloquial expression. To some extent this is perhaps stimulated by certain films. Much as I dislike censorship, if ever there were a case for censorship I believe that it is in the case of those films which feature this kind of behaviour and

313
therefore stimulate the minds of young people to endeavour to copy it. Since 31st March we have studied the case of the young Moroccans who carried out a most brutal assault on a young woman in Earl's Court. We have read that one of the defendants could not be charged with rape by virtue of being under the age of 14. Is it not possible that had the Members of the Standing Committee been able to foresee this case in March they might have arrived at a different decision?
The next objection was that accepting this Amendment would mean that one anomaly would be left outstanding, in that a charge of sodomy could still not be brought against a boy under the age of 14. First, sodomy is not necessarily an offence involving force. Secondly, I suggest that it is a static if not a declining crime, whereas rape in contrast is very much on the increase. There is plenty of time, therefore, to deal with this other offence at a later date; besides which, to include sodomy now would necessitate a change in the Long Title of the Bill.
The final objection which was advanced by another honourable and learned Member in another place was that one ought to beware of attacking the principle, thus putting the whole Bill into jeopardy. But what principle is being challenged? Even if one regards the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 as sacrosanct, nevertheless it is still the case, as the mover of the Amendment in the Commons pointed out, that a boy under the age of 14 can be charged with murder. If in the course of raping a girl he murders her, he may be charged with her murder but not with rape. He went on to say that this was downright stupid.
It must be said that since March of this year the Children and Young Persons Act has come under considerable criticism from widely varying quarters. In opposing the Amendment the Minister of State said that a youth of under 14 could instead be charged with indecent assault and his case would then be dealt with simply as being "in need of care and protection". I am bound to say, with respect, that the person in need of care and protection seems to me to be the unfortunate victim. I suggest that the perpetrator of this offence should be dealt with rather more stringently.
This is not a Party political matter. Both Labour and Conservative Members supported the Amendment in another place, while other Labour and Conservative Members opposed it and succeeded in defeating it. I believe that acceptance of the Amendment would accord with the state of public opinion, with common sense and, above all, with the interests of justice. I beg to move.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I think the House will be impressed by the powerful arguments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I think we should have some sympathy with them. It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that a boy of 14 should not be capable of sexual intercourse. I think we could all quote from our own experience hundreds of examples of boys who are more than capable. However, I hope he will not press this Amendment because I think in a certain sense it is irrelevant to this particular Bill: irrelevant only in the sense that it is rather like taking a wheel out of the mechanism of a clock. If you take one wheel out of the mechanism of a clock you have then to alter all the other wheels. I want to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that what he has put his finger on here is just such a wheel that involves a change in the whole complex of our law, and that to press it would in fact make it very difficult to get this simple and straightforward Bill on to the Statute Book.
The rule that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of rape is really only part of a wider rule that such a boy is incapable of sexual intercourse. We may think that that is out of date and outmoded; nevertheless it happens to exist in our body of law and that law has a very wide application. It affects every sexual offence, including sexual intercourse and involving offences of an unnatural sexual nature, some people might think, like buggery, sodomy and so forth. We believe that it would be wrong to alter the rule in this single Bill, in this single application, while allowing it to survive in other offences, and we suggest that the best approach is to leave it to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences, who will have the opportunity of considering the necessity of altering the rule over the whole area.

315
In short, what we want to do is to keep this Bill very simple and very short. We recognise that in this particular point it may be defective, but if the body of criminal law is altered as a result of discussions by the Criminal Law Revision Committee it will apply to this Bill as well, and therefore we shall all be happy. On that basis I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, not to press his Amendment.
9.12 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I may say that the Government view is exactly as expressed by my noble friend Lord Willis. Indeed, I cannot see that I can fruitfully add anything in relation to the general matter, but in view of the argument that was put forward, and with respect to it, perhaps I may say something which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might not have been able to say about the Scots law. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, the rule in Scotland is not the same as the rule in England, and as a result in law a boy under the age of 14 may be convicted of rape. But to give your Lordships some notion of how practical and important that is, I may say that there is only one recorded case in our books of a boy under the age of 14 being convicted of rape. That was one Robert Fulton, who was convicted in 1841 at the age of 13 years and 10 months. So although it may be that in theory Scots law does not contain what was described—although I do not accept the term—as a "self-evident nonsense", in practice perhaps the difference is not a very important one.
Therefore in my submission that reason is not a very compelling one at this stage, and surely, given the circumstances that at the present time the Criminal Law Revision Committee, assisted by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences, is, as my noble friend Lord Willis has said, seized of the situation, the better course is to allow the matter to be considered in that calm way and, if a change has to be made, let it be made.
Lord SOMERS Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I should just like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that, since the date that he has mentioned, there is evidence to show that physical develop-
316
ment takes place a good deal earlier than it did then?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, certainly I would not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said. But bearing in mind that that is the rule, and is still the rule today, in Scotland, as a practical matter it does not lead to charges of rape. Therefore, I do not think the argument is as compelling in practice as it sounds in theory. So I join in urging noble Lords not to support this Amendment, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to withdraw it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, speaking as an English member of the Bar, I would just say some possible words of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is, I suggest, not a matter of practicality. The state of the law, perhaps, to the outsider may seem absurd. It is much more a two-fold question of philosophy, and really of what I might call penal mechanics. If society wishes to deal with boys who commit the act of rape, in my submission it is not going to deal with them in the way in which someone who is an adult will be dealt with. Society will do something which it hopes will persuade that boy to lead a better and more fruitful life when eventually (because certainly he will be incarcerated to some degree or other) he is released back to society.
It may be—I do not know—that the noble Lord will agree with the proposition that there is not much point in merely branding the boy as a rapist and having him convicted of the crime if we are not going to deal with him as one would with the adult rapist. So although the law may look an ass, as to the uninitiated it does, it is quite a benign ass on this occasion, and I can assure the noble Lord from my own experience that boys who do commit the act of rape are not merely turned on to the streets to laugh about it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, quite clearly, at this late hour, after a long and exhausting day—in fact after a number of exhausting weeks—I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, particularly as I do not seem to have convinced any noble Lords, with possibly one exception, that the arguments against the Amendment are invalid. We have had a useful discussion. We have aired the subject. I would only say to the noble Earl,

317
Lord Mansfield, that I do not really see the difference between a boy of 14 years and one month and a boy of 13 years 11 months, so far as treatment is concerned. I do not see why there should be a sharp cut-off on the 14th birthday. However, that is all that is to be said at this point, so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS (ACCOUNTS) REGULATIONS 1976
9.18 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 19th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976 which were laid before Parliament on 19th October, be approved. The Protection of Depositors Act 1963 seeks to restrict the issue of advertisements inviting the public to deposit money. It makes an important exception, however, for companies in-corporated in Great Britain (or having an established place of business here). These companies may issue advertisements which conform with other regulations made under the Act, provided that twice yearly accounts are submitted to the Department of Trade. These accounts must also be made available to depositors, and potential depositors.
The draft regulations now before the House set out the form and content of these accounts. The regulations also include details of supplementary information which may be annexed to the accounts, and lay down auditing requirements.
The 1963 regulations, which this revised text is intended to replace, have latterly become in some respects inadequate in their principal purpose. This purpose is to provide depositors with sufficient information to enable them to form a judgment on the suitability of a company which invites them either to place new deposits or to maintain existing ones.
A subsidiary purpose is that the detailed accounts furnish the Department of Trade with information which enables it to evaluate the financial position of a
318
deposit-taking company. This is important because the Secretary of State has powers under the principal Act to present a petition for the winding-up of a deposit-taking company if he believes that the company is, for example, insolvent or unable to pay sums due and payable to its depositors.
In a White Paper published earlier this year the Government announced their proposals for revising the arrangements for the licensing and supervision of deposit-taking institutions. The implementation of those proposals will involve the repeal of the Protection of Depositors Act, but pending the introduction and passing of banking legislation, it seems right that we should introduce, as an interim measure, regulations which will have the effect of providing the depositor with more information.
It may be recalled that the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of the London and County Securities Group Limited considered, at the Department of Trade's request, secondary banking; and their report included recommendations for improving the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations. In drawing up the draft regulations now before us, the Department took into account the inspectors' recommendations as well as drawing upon the considerable experience of that Department's accountancy advisers.
The principal areas of change in the regulations are: first, particulars of loans made to directors, associates of directors and associated companies are required to be given; secondly, analysis by size, number and date of repayment is required in respect of loans to, and instalment credit agreements made by, the company; thirdly, additional information on interests in property and land is now required from all deposit-taking companies subject to the Act. Hitherto, this information has been required only from such companies having a "substantial" interest in property and land; and, fourthly, certain of the provisions of the Companies Act 1967 relating to companies' accounts are to be applied to accounts delivered under the Protection of Depositors Act. My Lords, there are just over 100 companies currently submitting accounts under the Act and, to allow them time to adjust to the new requirements, it is proposed that the new

319
regulations will not come into force until 1st February 1977. With those words of explanation, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 19th October, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
9.24 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful for the clear and concise way in which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, set out what I regard as a complicated and immensely detailed Bill. I have a few questions for him and I think he will be able to give me a reasonably general answer to them; I will not at this hour go into details and I am sure that if there are any points which the noble Lord is unable to answer we can settle the matter later by correspondence. First, why is the 1963 Act felt to have become inadequate? Is it just that the Department of Trade would like to up-date the accounts at this interim stage? Because the noble Lord and the Government will know that we are having discussions on the Companies (No. 2) Bill, which itself is an interim measure. That Bill is awaiting further developments in the Bullock Committee. Evidently, much has happened since 1963. I wonder whether the noble Lord can stress any further important points that lie feels should be brought out.
Secondly, if the Secretary of State were to be able to ask for a winding-up and to declare a company insolvent, I wonder how this would clash with a statement by directors under Regulation 6(c), which says that in the balance sheet the directors have to sign a declaration that the assets of the company are realisable at a realistic value. Clearly, such regulations must be enforced and any loopholes must be tightened up. Is there a clash between paragraph (c) and the general declaration by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Secretary of State can at present ask for liquidation?
Lastly, I wonder why we are having this interim Act. Was there any major case or has anything worried the Government? The noble Lord gave me a partial answer in that there was an unfortunate case that raised a number of issues. This
320
tightening up of the prevention of fraud regulations is at least a partial remedy. I am very pleased to see that the accounts must be submitted at least twice a year. This gives a further possibility for the depositors and the Secretary of State to scrutinise the way in which the company is being run.
I had a short opportunity to glance through the schedules at the end of the regulations. I wonder whether the noble Lord can confirm either now or later something that occurs in the interpretation of Schedule 2, paragraph 16, on page 12. This concerns instalment credit agreements. Loans are to be repayable by instalments at intervals not exceeding three months. I wonder whether these loans are supposed to be payable monthly, weekly, annually or three monthly. Why does this yardstick of three months come to be cited here? That is a minor point of detail, though I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear it up for me at some stage. However, I hope that I have not swamped the noble Lord with too many questions at this time of night. I should like to finish by thanking him for bringing forward this measure and for explaining and presenting it so clearly, and to give it our support.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in brief response to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I shall to some extent have to rest on the noble Lord's kind introduction in which he indicated that he was not necessarily expecting off-the-cuff replies to the details of his questions. The noble Lord asked me why the existing regulations were now considered to be inadequate. As he said, much has happened since 1963, experience has been gained in the Department of Trade and a certain number of modest Amendments were thought up and were in train. Then came the London and Counties Securities Group inquiry, and the report in connection with that episode indicated that a more thorough redrafting of the regulations was required. I believe that I can say that the regulations now before the House largely depend upon that report.
The noble Lord asks why this is urgent, or why this particular set of regulations is necessary. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government have more

321
general legislation in mind on secondary banking problems, but that will necessarily take some time, and it was thought that as an interim measure it was desirable to ensure that depositors are provided with information to help them. I think that that links with what the noble Lord referred to in relation to the Companies (No. 2) Bill. It is true that that Bill will affect the whole question that we are talking about, and there will be the necessity to go through this kind of exercise again. So I am not suggesting that what we are legislating for this evening will stand for all time. There will have to be another look at this question.
The noble Lord also raised the question of whether or not there was a clash between the Secretary of State's powers and Regulation 6(c), as well as the matter of the three months' period. I think that if we were dealing with a Bill I should successfully claim that those were Committee points, but unfortunately there is no Committee stage on an order of this kind, and so I will, if I may, write to the noble Lord on those two points.

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  EEC CURRENCIES AND "GREEN" EQUIVALENT
  EEC CURRENCIES AND "GREEN" EQUIVALENT
  TRAFFIC CENSUS ON A64 AND A169
  TRAFFIC CENSUS ON A64 AND A169
  EEC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: SURPLUS
  EEC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: SURPLUS