Sitting of 12 February 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

    LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 26 February.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Army Officers
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of commissioned officers in the Army was educated at public schools.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe):Details of the number of serving Army officers who were educated at independent schools are not available. The Army encourages applications for commissions from suitable canditates from schools of all types.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that, while about 5 per cent. only of all pupils go to public schools, in the year 1977–78 55 per cent. of candidates accepted for Army commissions were ex-public schoolboys? Is it therefore surprising to see the kind of Right-wing indoctrination that goes on in Camberley? Does not that illustrate the militant tendencies of the public schools and their ability to infiltrate the British Armed Forces?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I utterly repudiate the biased and prejudiced comments of the hon. Gentleman. The reaction from his own colleagues appeared to be that they laughed at such comments as much as we did. New entrants to the Army are divided roughly half and half between State schools and other schools.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that good officers come from a wide variety of background but that those who come from public or grammar schools often show outstanding qualities of leadership?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Army, of course, draws no distinction between applicants from State or independent schools. We are rightly concerned with the high standards expected of officers.
    Mr. Concannon: While it is important that we get a good spread of officer material from all kinds of educational establishments does the Minister agree

    1243
    with me when I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that, if he thinks the situation is bad now, it is a lot better than it used to be?
    Mr. Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is one thing worse than a snob, it is an inverted snob?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes. Alas, one has to look at one or two of them from this Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If that is so, I want to say that I went to Tonypandy grammar school.

    NATO
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym):I expect to meet NATO Defence Ministers at the Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee meetings in May.
    Mr. Brown: When my right hon. Friend meets his NATO colleagues will he raise with them the dangerous situation that may arise as a result of the uncertainties in Yugoslavia following the illness of President Tito? Will he discuss with them at the first opportunity the possibility of an unfortunate outcome to those difficulties and uncertainties?
    Mr. Pym:We shall consider that possibility when the time comes. The meeting is some way off. I remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has said that we shall do everything we can to see that the independence of Yugoslavia is maintained.
    Mr. Marks:Will the Secretary of State tell his colleagues at NATO that the failure to ratify SALT 2 is as harmful to the people of America and the NATO countries as it is to the Soviets and that America should be urged to consider that fact?
    Mr. Pym: I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows the position of the Government on that matter. We hope that SALT 2 will be ratified. That is also the hope of the Opposition. There has been no change in that matter
    Mr. Robert Atkins:Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues at NATO and in this House what is the planned increase in defence spending by his Department over the next five years?
    Mr. Pym:The House knows that the Government attach great importance to the NATO aim to seek to achieve a 3 per cent. increase per year in real terms. We believe that to be a most important objective.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will one item on the agenda be the question of possible nuclear leaks from URENCO, in Almelo, Holland? Is not that of great concern relating, as it does to Pakistan and NATO policy?
    Mr. Pym: I doubt whether the Defence Planning Committee is the proper body to deal with that matter but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Speaker: This matter comes up later.

    Royal Navy (Recruiting)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secreatry of State for Defence if he is satisfied with present recruiting levels for the Royal Navy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): Not yet. Recruitment into the Royal Navy over the last year continues to show an encouraging increase over that which was achieved in the previous 12 months. However, there is still a shortage in some categories and we have a number of measures in hand that are aimed at improving the position.
    Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he tell the House whether there is sufficient skilled and technical personnel not to prejudice the procurement of the Chevaline programme in relation to our Polaris submarines?
    Mr. Speed: As far as I am aware that is so. However, one shortage is in the artificer ratings, although I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, this year, there has been a larger number of entrants into artificer categories than in any year since 1964.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell:If the recruiting level of the Royal Navy is increased will there be enough ships for it to sail in?—What proposals does the Minister have to increase ship building?
    Mr. Speed: There are such proposals and the details will be contained in the Defence White Paper that is to be published in the near future.
    Mr. Duffy:Will the Minister say a word about the campaign that was begun last autumn to encourage technicians to enter the submarine branch of the Royal Navy? Will he also say a word about nuclear watchkeepers?
    Mr. Speed:The matter has been going well. I am not complacent about nuclear watchkeeprs in the submarine branch but the position is better than it was, not least because of financial incentives. A particular problem in the submarine service is that concerning junior seamen grade officers. Nevertheless, that is also improving and we are keeping a close eye on the position.

    NATO
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.
    Mr. Pym: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today.
    Mr. Evans: When the Secretary of State meets his NATO colleagues will he make it clear that many people in this country do not believe that the British economy will bear a 3 per cent.per annum increase in defence expenditure? Will he also make it clear that, despite the howls of outrage from his Right wing, he has no plans further to increase defence expenditure?
    Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the state of the economy. Of course, we have also to draw the attention of the House to the threat that we face. We believe, notwithstanding economic difficulties, that a further effort on defence is required. The whole Alliance takes that view and I personally would prefer that the increase should be greater than it will be. Despite economic difficulties, further effort on defence is un-
    1246
    doubtedly required and that is why we attach such importance to it.
    Mr. Banks: When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in NATO, will he discuss the report that the Soviet Union used chemical weapons producing nerve gas in its occupation of Afghanistan? Will he look in to the ways in which NATO forces can defend themselves against such weapons?
    Mr. Pym: I am unable to confirm or deny whether chemical weapons were used in Afghanistan. However, the protection of our forces against horrific chemical warfare is thought to be better—certainly as good, although SACEUR believes better—than any other army in Europe. That should be of reassurance to the House. What is alarming is the existence of the chemical capability by the Warsaw Pact countries. It is a horrific weapon and causes great anxiety. It is not sufficiently criticised and we are considering what should be our attitude towards it.
    Mr. Cook:When the Secretary of State meets his colleagues in NATO, will he remind them that assurances were given in this House and elsewhere that the decision to deploy cruise missiles would be accompanied by a new initiative in arms control? Is he aware that the paltry five-point statement that was issued in December neither contained anything new nor did it reveal an initiative? Will he invite his colleagues to pursue arms control with the same zest and animation with which they are pursuing the deployment of cruise missiles?
    Mr. Pym: Clearly, events in the world since that decision was taken have produced a cold climate for detente and arms control. However, that has in no way altered the importance that the Government attach to arms control. Offers remain on the table. So far, what has been put there has been rejected effectively by the Warsaw Pact countries. It is unfortunate and, although it is an important part of our policy, unless and until the other side is prepared to follow a policy of balanced and verifiable reduction it behoves us to be extremely cautious.
    Mr. William Rodgers: The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman

    1247
    takes a cautious view about the prospects for increased defence spending and, surely, that is right. Nevertheless, can the right hon. Gentleman say what new options increased defence spending would have created for Afghanistan or for the stabilising of the regime in Iran, the failure of which has created special problems for us in the Middle East? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that defence spending itself is a soluton to what are, essentially, political problems.
    Mr. Pym:I do not believe that I have pretended at any stage that a further spending on defence would have been specifically directed to what happened in Afghanistan, the events in Iran or the Middle East. The question is the total capability that NATO requires to deter a potential aggressor in the light of the growing strength of that potential aggressor. I could not be specific vis-a-vis the events in Afghanistan, and it would not be right for me to be so.

    RAF Strike Command
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the cargo and troop-carrying capability of RAF Strike Command.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): No. It is for that reason that the fuselages of 30 of our Hercules aircraft are being extended to give extra freight capacity.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that American Galaxy and Starlifter aircraft had to be used to carry our helicopters and other heavy vehicles for the use of our peace-keeping force in Rhodesia suggests that there is a gap in the capability of RAF Strike Command in the requirement to reinforce or to deploy rapidly?
    Mr. Pattie: I should tell my hon. Friend that the RAF was in a position to undertake that airlift capacity from within its own resources. The key question as to why it did not is one of speed. The extra heavy lift that United States' aircraft provide was needed. Therefore, we went for the quicker option of getting our forces in place.
    Mr. Emery: Does not my hon. Friend accept that speed is normally a factor in reinforcing any situation and is likely to remain so in the future? Will he tell the House the percentage of the airlift that was carried out by the RAF, commercial companies under contract and by the United States and the extra cost that would be involved if, in order to meet the speed requirement, the RAF had the resources to carry out such an airlift?
    Mr. Pattie: First, no civilian aircraft were used. The United States undertook two Galaxy sorties and 21 Starlifter sorties. I do not have percentage figures but I shall write to my hon. Friend on that matter. Of course, it would be desirable for the RAF to have the full range of aircraft available, but the decision was taken some years ago to reduce that option.

    Manpower
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the expected reduction in industrial and non-industrial staff within his Department.
    Mr. Pym: I aim to reduce by April 1982 the number of United Kingdom-based staff in my Department by 15,000 from the provision at1 April 1979. Half of this reduction is expected to come from the recruiting ban imposed by the Government last summer. That reduction has been made permanent. The remainder will come from those measures announced in the House on 6 December 1979 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, as part of the review of the size and cost of the Civil Service.
    In addition, I have commissioned studies to establish whether there is scope for saving in the Royal dockyards, research and development establishments and supply management. I am determined to ensure that my Department's business is carried out in the most efficient way.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that part of the supposed reduction is likely to be cosmetic as a result of the Government's desire to reduce numbers in the Civil Service? Will he ensure, particularly in relation to the naval dockyard at Rosyth, that the allocation of overheads, the screening of personnel and the security risks involved

    1249
    in employing outside contractors, are reviewed?
    Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of Rosyth. I am aware of the points that he has raised. It is possible that some posts may be saved. However, that depends upon the tenders that have now been put out. I shall certainly bear in mind those important points.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in Portsmouth and Gosport about the un-intentional rundown of Portsmouth dockyard, as a result of the lack of skilled manpower? Will my right hon. Friend give special flexibility to the management of Portsmouth dockyard, so that it can recruit the necessary men?
    Mr. Pym: I am acutely aware of the problems that have arisen in that dockyard and in others due to the rundown of skilled manpower. A number of those in skilled grades have left to take better paid jobs. That is a cause of great anxiety. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one reason why the whole subject is being reviewed. I am expecting the result of the study at the beginning of April. Having received it, I hope to make decisions that will result in more efficient productivity in the dockyards and better service to the Royal Navy.
    Mr. John Evans: How many of the 15,000 jobs to which the Secretary of State has referred will be transferred from the public sector to the private sector with the result that there will be no real savings?
    Mr. Pym: I cannot give a specific answer to that question at the moment. I have never made a secret of the fact that a number of jobs will be transferred from one sector to the other. The question is whether that can be done at a more economic cost. That is an important element of the argument.
    Mr. Snape: Can the Secretary of State assure us that any redundancies will be spread fairly between industrial and non-industrial staff? With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), in what areas is it possible to increase defence expenditure and yet reduce staff?
    Mr. Pym: If it is possible to fulfil our responsibilities at a more economic cost, a change should be considered. Indeed, if there are no strong objections to it, such a change should be carried through.
    Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Chatham dockyard is now equipped to carry out work on the most up-to-date vessels? There are no manpower problems at Chatham. Will he, therefore, give an undertaking that Chatham dockyards will not suffer from cutbacks?
    Mr. Pym: I have no such intention at the moment. I shall obviously consider the study before I come to any final conclusions. Obviously, the Royal dockyards fulfil a crucial function on behalf of the Royal Navy. It is in the interests of all that that work is carried out as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That is why the study is in hand.

    Queen's Flight
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet taken a decision on whether to reequip the Queen's Flight with modern aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pattie: I have as yet nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 21 January.
    Mr. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that that was a disappointing reply, particularly as this prestigious Flight is equipped with 15-year-old turboprop planes? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of its roles is to display the latest and best of British aviation to potential foreign buyers?
    Mr. Pattie: I do not know whether that was the original role of the Queen's Flight. It is certainly not its present role. The issue is being carefully considered. However, the whole cost will fall on the defence budget, and there are many other competing claims.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that, while the Government are presiding over a national economy of sackcloth and ashes, it is the height of absurd extravagance to spend a single penny on that Flight? During the past 12 months, on how many occasions have aircraft from this Flight been used

    1251
    for social purposes, to fly privileged personel to areas where they can shoot defenceless birds out of the air?
    Mr. Pattie: I somehow thought, Mr Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman might seek to catch your eye. During the past year the Queen's Flight has not been used for the purposes described by the hon. Gentleman. I shall remind the hon. Gentleman that 35 per cent. of all flights in the Queen's Flight are for the purpose of transporting non-Royal persons, such as Service chiefs and Government Ministers—no matter which Government are in power. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not take this opportunity as another excuse to parade his prejudices.
    Mr. Kershaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Queen's Flight is of the greatest help in the prosecution of Government business, especially in Northern Ireland? How on earth would the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)—who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland—have fitted into the tiny old-fashioned aeroplanes with which the Flight is equipped?
    Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is right. The Queen's Flight is of great assistance to the Government.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Minister confirm that the Queen's Flight consists not only of Andovers, but of the HS 125 and helicopters? VC 10s are also available for long-range Royal flights. Does he further agree that it would be a misappropriation of defence funds—particularly of the RAF's budget—to spend more on the Queen's Flight, when there are so many other deficiencies, particularly in air defence?
    Mr. Pattie:The hon. Gentleman is attempting to draw me into areas of internal Ministry of Defence debate, based on his previous experience. We must look at the subject of the present study, and the various other aircraft used for VIP flights. We shall consider whether new equipment is needed. At some point, the Andover aircraft will have to be replaced. It is simply a question of whether they are to be replaced by British equipment. However, that must be the case.

    Soviet Strategy (Europe)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers regarding Soviet intentions towards the use of military force in Europe; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pym: NATO assessments conclude that the foreign and defence policies of the Soviet Union aim at moving the balance of power in its favour. In the light of this, and the continued build up of Warsaw Pact forces, NATO must make continued efforts to ensure that the Alliance forces remain an adequate deterrent to aggression in Europe. The Government are determined that the United Kingdom will play its full part in these efforts.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that peace can be maintained in Europe only if the NATO Powers remain strong and united? Does he further agree that we should insist upon the territorial integrity of all countries in Europe that are outside the Soviet sphere of influence?
    Mr. Pym: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Haynes: If the Warsaw Pact countries were to increase their defence expenditure well above present figures, would the Secretary of State announce that the Government would review the 3 per cent. increase that he mentioned earlier?
    Mr. Pym: NATO's strategy is to act as a deterrent. We have never sought to match the full capability deployed by the Warsaw Pact countries. Warsaw Pact forces outnumber ours in terms of tanks, manpower and in several other ways. We need an adequate capability to deter. At present, the Soviet Union is increasing its military output at a substantially higher rate than NATO. If that were to continue, and if we thought that it was leading to a dangerous imbalance, we would review the situation. Our present intention is not to increase at as great a rate as the Soviet Union, but to ensure that we have an adequate capability to deter aggression and to preserve peace.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the realm of

    1253
    conventional forces and of theatre nuclear forces, the Soviet Union already possesses a dangerous imbalance of strength? Does he further agree that in most cases that imbalance amounts to two or three times the size of our own forces?
    Mr. Pym:Yes, such an imbalance does exist. There is also a growing imbalance in the nuclear field. The purpose of our nuclear capability is to maintain an adequate force with a retaliatory strike capability to deter an aggressor in the first place. We are constantly watching the balance between the two sides. We are aware, as I said earlier, that that balance is moving towards the East and that causes increased concern.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his reply ignores the rest of NATO's armed forces? Will he ask his NATO colleagues at least to negotiate Mr. Brezhnev's offer to reduce his SS20s if we do not proceed to deploy cruise and Pershing 2? We have three years before deployment takes place. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should use it at least to negotiate that offer?
    Mr. Pym:As the hon. Gentleman will know, there was no response at the MBFR negotiations. The offer made by the United States of withdrawing 1,000 warheads has not been taken up by the Soviet Union. The climate for a balanced and verifiable arms reduction appears to be unsatisfactory. That is not our fault. We are still trying to negotiate, and we hope to carry it through. Unless negotiation is undertaken on an even-handed basis by all sides, there is every reason for us to be cautious.
    Sir John Eden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the build-up of Soviet military strategy in Europe is far in excess of what is necessary for that country's self-defence? Will he make clear the Government's determination to repair as speedily as possible the damage done to our defence capability by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Pym: I do not believe that the forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are necessarily thought of in a self-defence role. On the whole, they are rather thought of in terms of
    1254
    offensive action. The Soviet Union's approach is totally different.
    We want to increase our defence capability throughout the Alliance, and make our contribution. The increased imbalance is of great concern. At the same time, we would be wise to remember that we cannot go faster than the strength of our economy, and that is why we cannot increase our strength as quickly as some of us would like.

    Reserve Forces
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recruitment in the reserve forces of the Crown has increased as a result of the improvement in pay and conditions recently introduced.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Recruiting for all the volunteer reserves is generally encouraging. As I informed the House during the debate on national service on 1 February, recruitment for the Territorial Army, which constitutes the bulk of our volunteer forces, has shown a sustained improvement, with the strength having increased by some 2,500 since August last year.
    Mr. Trippier:I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will give great encouragement to the vast majority of the House. Does he recall the statement that his right hon. Friend made to the House regarding the improvement in conditions and service of the reserve forces, to the effect that certain reserve forces such as the Royal Marines Reserve, will have their liability for call-up merged with the Territorial Army, and transfer of QO2 to QO1? When will that be done?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the Royal Marines Reserve—
    Mr. Canavan: A sponsored Member.
    Mr. Hayhoe:My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of speeding up mobilisation and reinforcement. Legislation may be required to bring the call-up requirement of those elements of our Armed Forces absolutely into line. I shall write to him on the details.
    Mr. George: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on the Labour Benches welcome the figures given? The

    1255
    Territorial Army is the closest approximation to a citizens' army that we can hope to achieve. Will the Minister confirm that we can meet our existing commitments, even in times of military pressure, within the framework of our professional Army, Regulars and Reservists, without recourse to the idiocy of a return to national service.
    Mr. Hayhoe:We debated that matter on 1 February. At present it is our judgment that there is no need to return to national service. We believe that we can meet our defence requirements by building up our Regular forces and our reserve forces. Both were allowed to run down during the previous Administration and need to be built back to proper strength.

    Her Majesty's Forces (Mobile Capability)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Defence, in view of the growing Soviet threat to the stability of South-West Asia, what additional strengthening he intends to make of Her Majesty's Forces' mobile capability.
    Mr. Pym: Her Majesty's Forces already have the capability to deploy world-wide to meet various contingencies. A Royal Navy task group deploys every year outside the NATO area. The current operation in Rhodesia has demonstrated the ability of the Army and RAF to respond to a non-NATO task. All three Services have a regular programme of training and exercises with friendly countries. However, in the light of recent events in Afghanistan, we shall continue, in consultation with our Allies, to keep under review our Forces' capability for operations outside the NATO area.
    Mr. Price: Does my right hon Friend agree that, due to the shortage of appropriate transport aircraft, our mobile capability outside the NATO area is, to say the least, limited?
    Mr. Pym: In certain circumstances one could wish that that capability was larger. On the other hand, we must keep our capabilities in proportion. In order to carry troops to Rhodesia, for instance, in a short space of time, we required the use of substantially larger aircraft from the United States, which seemed to be a sensible use of Alliance resources. The
    1256
    Alliance exists as a partnership, and the resources of each partner should be used as required in each situation. It does not mean, however, that we are satisfied with the present level of our transport. We are looking into the matter, and it may be possible modestly to extend our capability.
    Mr. Stephen Ross:Does the Minister agree that the large-scale type hovercraft would provide an additional mobility capability for our Forces in the South-West Asia area? What does the Minister intend to do about procuring some?
    Mr. Pym:I am bound to agree. Again, it is a question of resources. Recent tests and experiments have left no doubt that the value of those hovercraft is substantial.
    Mr. Adley: In my right hon. Friend's designation of friendly countries does he include the People's Republic of China?
    Mr. Pym: I think that I would, yes. Certainly those who are not against me are for me. We are taking some trouble to establish a friendly and sensible relationship with the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Roper: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with our capacity for simultaneous parachute drops? Will he take account of that in reviewing the situation?
    Mr. Pym: I am not sure that I am satisfied with anything. That capability is being studied.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on operations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Armed Forces continue to demonstrate high levels of courage, skill and resourcefulness in carrying out their task in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In the first month of this year, 68 people have been charged with terrorist offences, including 12 for murder and eight for attempted murder. Sadly, one regular soldier and four UDR soldiers have been killed in 1980 by terrorist activities, which continue to be directed primarily at members of security forces. However, three bombs totalling

    1257
    over 1,000 lbs have been defused by ammunition technical teams and there have been significant finds of weapons and explosives.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from the Regular Army, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ulster Defence Regiment deserves the thanks of Parliament after a decade of endurance, tedium, danger and cowardly murder, and, in particular, intimidation of its Roman Catholic members? Will the Ulster Defence Regiment receive a bounty no less than that received by those in the Territorial Army in time for the tenth anniversary of its splendid service?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am delighted to underline in every detail the highly proper remarks and tribute paid by my hon. Friend to the Ulster Defence Regiment. It performs a valuable service. I absolutely refute any suggestion of sectarian bias in the regiment. Bounties for the Ulster Defence Regiment are being studied, and I hope to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to strengthen the defence capability in frontier areas, particularly in view of the muderous assaults mounted against the security forces in County Fermanagh?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is not for me to decide on the deployment of forces. That is for the GOC.
    Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in those fairly rare cases where a member of Her Majesty's Forces is badly injured, compensation will be interpreted in the most humane and understanding way possible?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that that should be done.
    Mr. Concannon: While joining with the Minister in his commendation of the Army, the UDR and anyone else in Northern Ireland on security duties, may I press him to say something about the possibility of long-term units? There was a suggestion that there would be long-term units in Northern Ireland to save rapid turnover.
    Mr. Hayhoe: We are moving towards more resident battalions. Indeed, a fifth was introduced at Aldergrove in September 1978. Planning is in hand for a
    1258
    sixth resident battalion, which will mean a reduction in the overstretch and turbulence for the other soldiers involved.

    Self-loading Rifle
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to the replacement of the SLR rifle at present in use by the Army; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is our intention to begin equipping the Army with a new rifle in the mid-80s. The calibre will depend on analysis of the results of the recently completed NATO small arms tests but will be smaller than that of the existing weapon.
    Mr. Shersby:Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the Army? Is he also aware that a proportion of the SLR rifles in use by the Territorial Army at present are in very poor condition and not suitable for resisting an enemy using modern weapons? Will my hon. Friend consider whether the replacement of those rifles can be speeded up?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend mentioned the SLR, which was introduced in 1956. Production ceased some 12 years ago. A continuing system of base repairs, together with the very latest repair techniques, is needed to ensure that the most economic use is obtained of these weapons. This is one reason why we are moving towards the new weapon as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister tell us at what stage standardisation will be reached? Does he agree that the movement of political decisions should be enhanced to bring about the standardisation which the Armed Forces so badly need? Does he also agree that standardisation will reduce expenditure?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am very much in favour of standardisation within the NATO area and I have already referred to the NATOtrials. Whatever calibre is finally adopted, one can be certain that it will be standardised throughout NATO.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the last occasion that a NATO rifle was adopted, the British contribution got very short shrift from our Allies? If there is to be further

    1259
    consultation, will he press our case very hard?
    Mr. Hayhoe:Certainly. There is no doubt at all that the United Kingdom tender in the NATO trials is performing, extremely well.

    Training (Overseas Personnel)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the criteria laid down for the acceptance for courses of military or other training in Great Britain of members of the armed forces of a foreign country.
    Mr. Pym: Our policy on the provision of military training for other countries is primarily governed by defence, foreign policy and economic considerations. There are also, of course, such practical considerations as the availability of places and the qualifications of the individual students.
    Mr. Newens: Remembering that the son of the former president of Nicaragua. President Sumoza, was trained in this country, and that currently Argentinian and Indonesian forces are training here, can the Minister assure the House that human rights considerations in the home countries are taken fully into account before trainees are accepted here? Can he also assure the House that none of the trainees will be given courses in interrogation techniques, which many of us would regard as a euphemism for torture?
    Mr. Pym: I am not aware of any courses being given in interrogation techniques. We try to take all these factors into account. In my original answer I indicated all the principal considerations. There are no Chilean students under training in Service establishments.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that staff courses, and particularly senior staff courses, are often more effective when they are confined to British nationals, since discussion and criticism can be more uninhibited?
    Mr. Pym: While I am sure that that is true, it does also seem to be the case that our defence is strengthened by widening our training capabilities for military
    1260
    personnel of other countries. That does not mean to say that all courses, or all staff college courses, apply to countries other than our own. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Armed Forces do not seek such candidates for their training courses and that they are sometimes embarrassed by the numbers who apply? Will he also confirm that there has been no relaxation in the criteria governing such entrants?
    Mr. Pym: There has been no such relaxation. The applications for courses continue at a high level because our training capability is regarded very highly around the world. Very often we have a choice of students, and we make that choice on the basis that I gave in my original answer.

    French Minister of Defence
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Minister of Defence regarding European co-operation in defence matters
    Mr. Pym: Monsieur Bourges visited me in London on 28 January, and we discussed current strategic issues of concern to the West and defence equipment topics, including collaborative projects.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are possibilities of limited, although real, extensions of co-operation in this field between Britain and France for the benefit of this country's defence and the improvement of Anglo-French relations?
    Mr. Pym: I certainly would say that. Links between France and NATO have been strengthened in the last five years, and French participation in joint exercises has grown. I am encouraged by those closer links, and am doing what I can further to encourage them.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Shersbyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
  Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon Friend take time during her busy day to convey a message to the water workers, urging them to seek a moderate and sensible pay settlement? Will she also convey to them that strike action to shut off the nation's water supply and endanger sewage treatment cannot be tolerated?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Already, most of us believe that water charges are very high and I hope that those who are demanding more will remember that that "more" will have to be met by people who have far less than a large number of the workers themselves.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Prime Minister understand that the workers in the water industry are simply trying to recoup for themselves what they have lost because of the raging inflation that has been created by this Government's policies?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows that the amount which has been offered is in excess of the retail price index, even taking account of the increase in VAT which occurred last July. Those pay increases will go through into the increased price of water. I do not know what the hon. Member's postbag contains, but in mine there are already a large number of complaints about the high water rate.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the plight of the engineering industry? Is she aware that many engineering companies will soon run short of steel, even though stocks of steel still exist? Have the Government any plans to ensure that pressed steel can reach those companies which need it?
  The Prime Minister: So far, as my hon. Friend knows, most of industry has coped extremely well, in spite of the shortage of steel. One of the factors which those on strike must consider is the effect of their strike on their fellow workers in other industries. I hope that that will weigh
  1262
  heavily with them in the decisions they take to get back around the negotiating table.
  Mr. Guy Barnett:Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to send a circular to all local authorities containing the text of a model speech which may be made in council chambers and which can be sure not to incur the displeasure of the Secretary of State and, therefore, the use of penal sanctions against local authorities?
  The Prime Minister: No, I do not like too many circulars.
  Mr. Moate: Will the Prime Minister consider inviting the Leader of the Opposition to join her in sending a message of congratulations to the employees of the Sheerness Steel Company on the Isle of Sheppey, who have refused to be intimidated by mass picketing and who have democratically asserted their right to carry on working, despite some pretty unpleasant experiences inflicted upon them by some pickets from outside? Is she aware that their courage and determination have earned the respect and admiration of the whole local community?
  The Prime Minister: The workers in Sheerness have rightly exercised their lawful right to go about their business and to continue to earn their living for themselves and for their families. I do, indeed, congratulate them. It is notable that private sector steel, existing in the same world as the British Steel Corporation, is able to make a profit and to contribute to the cost of health, education and all the other things of which we want more in this country.
  Mr. McElhoneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.
  Mr. McElhone: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the financial crisis at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow? Is she aware that children's lives are at risk there because lack of finance is jeopardising life-saving operations? Is she also aware that Dr. McAllister, a doctor in that hospital, has

  1263
  said that what the Government are doing verges on cruelty? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how her Government's mean and contemptible economic policy can, on the one hand, give tax handouts to the rich taxpayer and, on the other, threaten the lives of children in my constituency and other constituencies in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in general the amount of money, in real terms, allocated to the National Health Service has not been reduced. Indeed, this Government had to increase the cash limit to provide for increased pay to the nurses and the National Health Service auxiliaries. With regard to that particular hospital, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a letter indicating his concern. We understand from the health board that there has been no cut in the financial allocation that it has made to the hospital.
  Mr. William Shelton: Has my right hon. Friend heard the result of the Leyland ballot in which the workers have apparently refused to accept the pay offer? What result does my right hon. Friend think this will have on the future of the company and its car sales?
  The Prime Minister: I hope, naturally, that the workers will not take industrial action. That ballot was not to take industrial action. British Leyland has severe problems on its hands in view of its high stocks and the inability to finance any more stocks. As my hon. Friend knows, about £1,000 million of public money has already gone into British Leyland. I hope that, in view of their excellent production record last month, everyone will together consider how to go forward and get the company back into profitability.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: If the right hon. Lady is sending messages, will she send one of congratulations to the firemen in my constituency and along the South Coast who are having to deal with a dirty job, namely the chemicals coming ashore from a ship called the "Aeolian Sky"? Many of my constituents are worried about what is happening. The problem has almost caused fatalities. Will she instruct her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to take action quickly to deal with the wreck?
  The Prime Minister: I know of the great concern that exists if pollution from ships comes ashore. I shall contact my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend seen the suggestion that the profit-making private sector of the steel industry should take over some of the assets of British Steel and show it how to operate with the good will of its workers and at a profit?
  The Prime Minister: It is noteworthy that the private sector of steel is operating at a profit in the same world in which the British Steel Corporation is making very heavy losses. There would be no objection whatever by the Government if the British Steel Corporation wished to sell off some of its plant that might otherwise be closed. Indeed, I think, it would be an excellent solution.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Before the right hon. Lady says more about water workers, will she comment on the circular issued by the Scottish Office suggesting that local authorities such as the Borders regional council should discharge raw sewage into the river Tweed in order to save public expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the case of a member of my union, ASTMS, working as a nurse in British Steel who has felt obliged to resign her job after pressure exerted on her after refusing to contribute to strike funds? Does she not agree that incidents of this kind bring the trade union movement into disrepute and make it doubly difficult for the Government to proceed with their moderate proposals for trade union reform?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that incidents of that kind bring the trade union movement into disrepute. They demonstrate the need for this Government to strengthen the law and get ahead with trade union reform.
  Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister find time today to confirm that her Government have no intention of giving extra Government time to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill nor to extend any Friday sitting beyond the usual time for that purpose?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that we are likely to be on that subject for one more Friday yet or perhaps more.
  Mr. Trippier: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent press reports that certain people have been claiming social security benefits to which they have not been entitled? Will she confirm that early Government action will be taken to curb this waste of taxpayers' money?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is trying to make certain that people do not get social security benefits to which they are not entitled. It should be made clear that those who take them fraudulently are reducing the amount of money available for those in genuine need.
  Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
  Mr. Newens: Will the Prime Minister take urgent steps, including consulting the front-line Presidents, to seek to make sure that Lord Soames no longer has to rely on the forces of the previous Rhodesian Administration and is, thus, able to avoid arrests such as that of Garfield Todd and many others which endangering the ceasefire and may lead to the sort of breakdown that many of us have feared? Is he aware that this could produce a blood-bath which I am sure all Members of the House would regard with horror?
  The Prime Minister: The arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd is a matter for the police and I cannot comment upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, I cannot comment on it. The arrest of Mr. Todd is a matter for the police and the law must take its ordinary course. The actions of Lord Soames, who is Governor of Rhodesia at present, are governed by the Lancaster House agreement and he is sticking to that.
  Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend take time, in the course of today, to reflect that on the Order Paper there are no fewer than four early-day motions affecting the future of rural post offices? Does she agree that the Government ought not automatically to take on board every half-baked idea from their advisers which would affect millions of the under-privileged in this country without the fullest debate and decision in this House?
  The Prime Minister: Any suggestions of this magnitude would be submitted to full debate and decision of the House, but not all ideas are half-baked and some of the half-baked ones can be fully-baked.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reassure the people of Merseyside, who are being made redundant, and to say when her economic policies will allow the entrepreneurs, who are supposed to have been released from the shackles of high taxation by the last Budget, to start investing in Merseyside? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Government-inspired amendments to the County of Merseyside Bill [Lords], which will come before the House on Thursday, have been designed to take away the powers of Merseyside county council to encourage industrial investment in Merseyside? Will she see that those amendments are withdrawn?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised a general point about investment and increasing the role of small business. This country is getting through because of the vitality of many businesses in the private sector that are making profits. If they were not, we should not have the resources either for health or education or for the vast loss-making nationalised industries that need an ever-increasing amount of money.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at the plans for the future of the Commonwealth monitoring force in Rhodesia? Bearing in mind the rising tide of violence, has it not become imperative that those soldiers should be withdrawn after the votes have been cast, but before the result is known?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the soldiers are there to monitor and not in any way to keep order.

  1267
  The order is kept by virtue of the Governor requesting the forces to go where there is any report of disorder, but I do not think it would be wise to give any undertaking now about the future of the monitoring force.
  Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the Prime Minister's well-deserved tribute to the small businesses of this country, may I ask whether she is aware that the Secretary of State for Employment made a speech recently in which he said that the biggest handicap from which those businesses had to suffer was a 17 per cent. minimum lending rate? What has gone wrong with her monetary policy?
  The Prime Minister: The fact that we had a very high increase in public expenditure this last year—[Interruption.] Surely the former Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is not arguing with that. It is a matter of fact. It is in the public expenditure White Paper. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, we have had to attempt to reduce that expenditure. When it is reduced and when we can get the borrowing down, interest rates will come down. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman so many times, we shall be grateful for his support. There seems to be some competition between the Leader of the Opposition and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. James Callaghan: As minimum lending rate was put up to 15 per cent. in June, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it would be only a few weeks before it came down again, what has gone wrong with the Government's policy, now that we have had a record MLR of 17 per cent. for two months? Is the Prime Minister proud of herself?
  The Prime Minister: First, it was 14 per cent. and not 15 per cent.
  1268
  Let that 1 per cent pass. These 1 per cents. never seem to concern the right hon. Gentleman. He does not care a tuppenny damn about some of them. Never mind.
  We need to get public spending down further, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the process of a nation which has been living beyond its means coming to live within its means is a distinctly uncomfortable one. We shall pursue the policy of reducing public spending as a proportion of the national income.
  Mr. James Callaghan: So that means that small businesses can expect no help at all from the Government?
  The Prime Minister: On the contrary. It means that this Government are the only one who are likely to pursue a policy that brings the nation to live within its means—a policy totally rejected by the Labour Party.

STANDING ORDERS (BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) raised a point of order concerning private business procedure. I have given careful consideration to the substantial points that he made in his statement to the House.
Private business Standing Orders, which regulate the details of Private Bill procedures, have, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, always been treated as an aspect of private business. It would be no light matter for me to change this long-established practice of the House.
In my judgment, it is the House itself which ought to decide the matter on a motion if it is felt that such a change as the hon. Gentleman indicated is necessary.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND)
3.34 pm
Mr. Allen Adams (Paisley): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to adoption of children in Scotland; and for connected purposes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be fairer to the hon. Gentleman if I asked him to wait for a moment. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so as quickly and quietly as possible?
Mr. Adams: Let me say at the outset that this is not a party political matter. Indeed, I have received support for the Bill from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that men of good will, irrespective of their political views, would give support to easing the plight of so many children who are in the care of local authorities.
A colleague of mine in Glasgow once said that in order to adopt a child in Scotland one needed the wealth of Onassis, the wisdom of Solomon and the strength of Hercules. That was an exaggeration, but it is no exaggeration to say that there are many obstacles in the path of prospective adopters in Scotland. That is a tragedy when we consider how many totally innocent children, especially older children aged between 8 and 15, we have in the care of local authorities in Scotland.
The object of the Bill is to remove one small obstacle from the path of prospective adopters. I do not pretend that the Bill will change the world or remove all the obstacles in the path of prospective adopters, but I hope that it will remove one small one.
I also hope that the Bill will bring to the attention of the House and the public the plight of so many unfortunate children. In Strathclyde alone, with a population of 2½ million—representing about one-half of the population of Scotland—we have 5,000 children in the care of local authorities. That figure is not untypical of the figures in the rest of Scotland and Great Britain. Of those 5,000 children, about 3,000 are in residential establishments—children's homes. That is a terrible indictment of contemporary society and of the uncaring, un-
1270
feeling and selfish attitude that is abroad in society.
I hope that the House will support the Bill to show that we care about those children and firmly stand by the principle that they, like all other children, have the right to enjoy the love and affection of parents and the stability of a normal home background.
There are three basic and, I hope, simple points to make in connection with the Bill. First, I want to remove the financial burden put on prospective adopters by the legal costs of adoption in Scotland. Most lawyers in Scotland, like those in other parts of the United Kingdom, are reasonable people and legal costs generally amount to £100 or £150. However, as a former chairman of the Strathclyde adoption committee, I know of instances where lawyers have charged £400 or £500 to present a petition to the sheriff court on behalf of prospective adopters. Clearly, that must be stopped.
In addition, a couple wanting to adopt a child are not covered by the National Health Service. They have to pay a fee of £25 or £30 to their general practitioner, although, again, there are one or two rogues who charge as much as £100. That must also be stopped. A petitioner must also pay the statutory fee of about £25 to the curator ad litem.
While the average cost of adoption in Scotland is probably £150 to £200, there are many instances in which costs can go as high as £500 or £600. There are many examples of that. Clearly it is a barrier, a break, an obstacle to ordinary people who apply to adopt a child. One could go down any street, in any of the cities, towns and villages of Scotland and ask people whether they thought that adoption was cheap, or whether it was reasonable, or whether they could afford it. The consensus would be that the average person could not afford adoption.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are still 3,000 children in the care of local authorities in Scotland who have not seen the outside of a children's home for five or 10 years. That is intolerable. The House must rule that adoption should be available to all people, irrespective of their means.
I hope that the House will adopt the Bill and not simply make noises about

1271
it. I hope that we are determined enough to stretch out a hand to those 3,000 children in Strathclyde and to the 2,000 or 3,000 children in other parts of Scotland. I hope that we shall not merely talk about it. I hope—unlike what happens in the case of most Ten-Minute Bills—that we shall give some weight and time to this important legislation and ensure that it is enacted. At the end of the day, if it takes only one child out of care it will be worth it.
I specifically propose that there should be a £50 limit on the fees charged by solicitors. In other words, there should be a charge of not more than £50 for presenting a petition to the sheriff court.
I also suggest that medical fees should be borne by the National Health Service. At present, a person has to pay a fee to a general practitioner when he is examined as a prospective adopter. I should also like the local authority to bear the cost of the curator ad litem.
Those are three basic, simple points. They will not change the world, but they will make life a little easier for one or two children.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Raymond Ellis, Mr. Ron Brown, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Andy McMahon, Mr. Michael Martin and Mr. Norman Hogg.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND)
  ADOPTION (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Allen Adams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to adoption of children in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 March and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the motion on the allocation of time and the report of the Business Committee, will you inform the House by what means the report of the Business Committee of 11 February is made available to it. It is not available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is on the back of the Notice Paper that was published this morning. Like me, the hon. Gentleman looks to the front.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Report [11 February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That the following provisions shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of the Resolution of the Committee that was reported to the House on 7th February—

(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, amendments to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 16, Schedule 3, Clause 17, Schedule 4, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 5, Clauses 20 to 22, Clause 24, Clause 23, Clause 25, Clauses 26 to 31, Schedule 6, Clauses 32 to 37 and Schedule 7 and New Schedules;

(2) the allotted days which under the Orders [29th January and 11th February] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table setout below and, subject to the provisions of those Orders, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

  TABLE
  Allotted day, proceedings and time for conclusion of proceedings
  First day
  New Clauses, 8.30 p.m.
  Amendments up to the end of Schedule 2, 10 p.m.
  Amendments up to the end of Schedule 3, 11 p.m.
  Amendments up to the end of Clause 18, 2 a.m.
  Second day
  Amendments up to the end of Clause 24, 6.30 p.m.
  Amendments up to the end of Clause 25, 9.30 p.m.
  Remaining proceedings on consideration, 11 p.m.
  Third Reading, Midnight.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
  [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
    New Clause 1

      NURSERY EDUCATION: ENGLAND AND WALES
      '(1) A local education authority shall have power to establish nursery schools, to maintain such schools established by them or a former authority and to assist any such school which is not so established.

      (2) A local education authority shall not by virtue of section 8 of the Education Act 1944 be under any duty in respect of junior pupils who have not attained the age of five years but this subsection shall not effect the power of an authority under section 9(1) of that Act to establish, maintain or assist a school at which education is provided both for such pupils and older pupils, including a school at which there is a nursery class for such junior pupils as aforesaid.'—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.40 pm
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Sub-amendment (b), in subsection (2), leave out "five" and insert "four".
      Sub-amendment (a), in subsection (2), at end add—
      '(3) A local education authority shall not charge for any education in nursery schools or classes'.
      Sub-amendment (c), in subsection (2), at end add—
      '(3) This section shall not take effect earlier than 4th May 1984.'.
      Sub-amendment (d), in subsection (2), at end add—
      1274
      '(3) A local education authority shall provide nursery education for any child in its area where

      (a) his family is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement; or

      (b) he is the child of a one-parent family; or

      (c) his family is in receipt of an income below that prescribed as a qualification for nursery education by the Secretary of State in regulations.'

      New clause 2—Nursery education: Scotland—

      '(1) An education authority shall have power to provide for their area school education in nursery schools and nursery classes.

      (2) The duties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 shall not apply in relation to the provision of school education in nursery schools and nursery classes.

      (3) This section applies to Scotland only.'.

      Sub-amendment (a), at end add
      '(4) An education authority may not charge for any education in nursery schools or nursery classes.'
      Government amendments Nos. 62, 63, 20.
      Amendment No. 90, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
      '(10) The Secretary of State shall not approve any proposal to cease to maintain any nursery school or to make a significant change in the character of a county school by the closure of a nursery class thereat, where such nursery school or class is in existence at the passing of this Act, unless the local education authority proposes also to make satisfactory alternative provisions in nursery schools or classes, as the case may be'.
      Government amendments, Nos. 62, 63, 64, 73 and 78.
      Mr. Carlisle: This new clause and the amendments deal generally with the provision of nursery education in England, Wales and Scotland. They are important. It is because of their importance that the Opposition asked that the timetable motion should be amended to allow further time for discussion—a request to which the Government were happy to accede. It is also the cause of our having an extra two hours to debate the Report stage of the Bill.
      Taken as a whole, the effect of the new clause and the amendments is to make clear that local education authorities in England and Wales have a power but not a duty to provide education for those children who are under compulsory school age. At the same time, they provide that where separate nursery schools exist they cannot be closed other than

      1275
      by the use of what was known as section 13 procedure—clause 12 of the Bill—namely, the publication of the intention to close and the opportunity for local people to object.
      Finally, since the intention of the main clause is to make clear that there is a power but not a duty on local education authorities to provide education, equally it converts into a power the duty applied in the Act for one local education authority to pay another authority if that other authority is providing education for a child.
      That is the purpose of the new clause and the group of amendments. Taken together, these provisions are not intended as, nor should they be taken as, a reduction of interest by the Government in the provision of education for children under 5 years of age. We are still anxious that local education authorities should make as much provision of education as possible, consistent with the available resources.
      I should like to explain to the House the reason why the Government consider it necessary to bring forward the new clause and the amendments. The House will remember that during the course of last year the Oxfordshire county council proposed to close all the nursery schools and nursery classes then provided in the county by a later date, and instead to replace that provision with an alternative provision of education for children under 5 years of age. The chief education officer was asked to put forward a scheme for consideration by the council.
      The resolution passed by the Oxfordshire county council started a good deal of controversy, particularly on the question whether or not the county council was able to do that, and whether there was a duty or merely a power to provide education for children under 5. The Department of Education and Science had already examined the legal requirements relating to nursery education. It is clear that over the years—certainly until some people had the benefit of hindsight—everyone accepted that the provision for nursery education was a discretionary power for local education authorities. It is equally clear that there is a statutory duty to provide schools for children under 5, but it is also a fact that that statutory duty is extremely unclear.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State said that everyone assumed otherwise. There is one exception—Lord Butler. He said clearly that it was his intention to make it a duty for local education authorities to provide nursery education. He said that those provisions were written into the proposed measure in 1943. It is now 1980–37 years later.
      Mr. Carlisle: What I said was that until I announced the intention to put forward the new clause, no one—that is why I referred to the benefit of hindsight—had said that there was other than a discretion. I do not thnk that even the noble Lord, the framer of the Act, had publicly announced previously what he said after I published these amendments with regard to the power.
      There is a statutory duty to provide education for children under 5 but the statutory duty is extremely unclear I should like to explain to the House what I mean by that. The provisions with regard to the duty on local education authorities to provide education for those of compulsory school age are to be found in section 8 of the Education Act 1944. Those powers provide that
      "It shall be the duty of every local authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools".
      Under that provision, sufficient schools have to be made available
      "for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils".
      That duty is clear, and is specifically laid down in terms of the provision to provide sufficient primary schools for the area. That duty is defined by saying that the primary schools shall provide
      "full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils".
      When we look for the definition of a junior pupil, it is apparent that the duty applies to those under 5 as well as to those over 5, since the only definition of a junior pupil is any pupil under the age of 12.
      But since there is a duty to provide sufficient schools for children under 5 as well as over 5, and since there is no requirement on parents of children under 5 to send their children to school, it is impossible to say what that level of provision would be held to be.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Does the right hon. and learned

      1277
      Gentleman agree that the same position exists with further education, and that although there is no compulsory requirement to receive further education there is still a duty laid upon local authorities to provide further education? In that sense, the position governing further education and that governing nursery school education are absolutely evenhanded. To cut out the provision for nursery school education would therefore be quite illogical. There is no problem with further education. Why should there be one with nursery education?
      Mr. Carlisle:I do not accept that argument. I was trying to explain why I believe that it has come about that, although there is a duty of the kind provided in the 1944 Act, no one has ever looked at or debated the matter of nursery education other than in the terms of there being a general power. We are dealing with children below compulsory school age and there is no requirement on the parents to send such children to school. Although there is a general requirement to provide sufficient schools, it is impossible to say what the level of provision should be.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Carlisle: I should like to proceed a little further on this aspect, otherwise I shall be accused of giving way too often and of taking up too much time.
      Equally, there is clearly no duty, nor has there ever been a duty—although this has been misunderstood by many people—either to provide nursery schools or education in nursery classes. The only reference to nursery schools or to classes is that which provides that the authorities, in carrying out their duty to provide sufficient schools for those under 5, should have regard—it goes further than that—to the need for securing it by the provision of nursery schools.
      The legal position, is that there is a duty to provide sufficient schools to meet the educational demands of the people in the area, but clearly there is no duty to attend the school. There is also no duty as to what form of school it should be, whether a primary or a nursery school or a nursery class. There is a responsibility, in carrying out that duty, merely to have regard to the possibility of nursery schools.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: If no specific duty is imposed, how was it that Lord Hailsham came to the conclusion, when he was Minister of Education in 1957, that the county of Somerset had a duty to provide, and has had to sustain that duty ever since?
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The one exception to my statement—that the whole of the debate has gone on the basis that it was a power and not a duty—was when Somerset announced its intention to do what Oxfordshire announced its intentions to do, namely, to close its schools. It was pointed out to Somerset—the papers have since been looked at—that it was the view of the Department, and has always been the legal view within the Department—although perhaps I should not mention it here—that there is a duty. It was the conveyance of that view to Somerset that made Somerset change its mind about what it intended to do.
      The problem is the imprecision of the duty. In many cases it is felt that only the courts can decide. Other than in the case of the warning to Somerset at the earlier stage, there has never been any attempt to enforce the duty upon any local education authority. The whole debate has continued on the general assumption that there is merely a discretionary power.
      I do not believe that a lack of clarity surrounding this duty would help anyone other than, perhaps, members of my own profession, who might earn considerable sums in arguing in every case what was meant by the necessary degree of provision in an area where there is no duty on the parent to ensure that the child attends school.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: When the Secretary of State quoted the part of the Act relating to the fulfilling of the duties, he did not state that he was quoting from section 8 (2). In that subsection. paragraph (b) relates to where the pupils have not attained the age of 5 years, but paragraph (c) refers to
      "the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who suffer from any disability of mind or body".
      Is the Secretary of State now saying that if a local authority does not wish to pursue the provision of special schools, it should have the option so to do?

      1279
      Surely he agrees that the wording in the Act is precisely the same for each sort of school.
      Mr. Carlisle: Yes, but I am saying that there should be a clear duty on local authorities to provide sufficient schools for children of compulsory school age who need special schools, in exactly the same way as there is a duty on local authorities to make provision for primary or secondary schools. The words that the hon. Gentleman read out show that the duty does not necessarily have to be carried out by providing special schools. It can be done by saying that there will be places in the ordinary schools. But in carrying out their duty to those who have illnesses, mental or physical, the authorities are required to have regard to the need for special schools.
      I was saying that there has never been an attempt to enforce the provision. I do not believe that it is wise to leave the law unclear on this matter. It is necessary to make it clear, and in the amendments I am attempting to bring the law into line with what it was always thought to be.
      Whatever the framers of the 1944 Act intended—I refer now to Lord Butler—there is no doubt that, under pressure of resources those intentions have not been carried out. In fact, the education for those under 5, which existed on a considerable basis at the time of the passing of the 1944 Act, as a result of having been provided during wartime, then began to wither away, and that process continued for the next 20 years. It was not until 1966, following the report of the Plowden committee, that interest in nursery school education appears to have been revised as a matter of public debate.
      As the House will know, the Plowden committee recommended that education for children below the age of 5 should be available to all those who wish for it. The committee considered that that meant a provision for 90 per cent. of children of the age of 4, and for 50 per cent. of those of the age of 3 although largely on a part-time basis.
      4 pm
      It was six years later, in 1972, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, first turned that
      1280
      recommendation into a commitment in her White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion". It was the commitment of the Government at that time that those targets—if I may put it that way—set by the Plowden committee should be reached by 1982.
      Under pressure of shortage of resources, there is no doubt that the target figures for the expansion of the education of under-fives have long since been abandoned. The nursery school building programme for which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister provided when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science was reduced rapidly. It was implemented for two years, it was halved for the year 1976–77, and that half was divided by a further two-thirds for 1977–78. What had been a building provision of £21½ million in 1974 had fallen to a building provision of £2·7 million by 1977–78.
      The rate support grant circular put out by the previous Labour Administration for the years 1976–77 and 1977–78 specifically advocated restricting the number of under-fives going to schools as a means to cut expenditure. At present we have about 650 nursery schools, about 4,400 nursery classes, with 19 per cent. of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in those schools or classes, and a further 20 per cent. of under-fives in the ordinary classes of primary schools. The figures and the reasons that I have given are intended not to make a purely party political point but to show that, however anxious both sides of the House may have been to meet the Plowden committee recommendations both have had to accept—when it came to the implementation—that it could be done only within the resources available. I do not believe that there is any point in keeping in existence a shadowy duty that is probably unenforceable and, in present circumstances unattainable.
      The Government believe firmly in the value of nursery education for all young children, and that remains our long term aim. It is especially valuable for the handicapped and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They must have priority in the provision of resources in the short term. More than 70 per cent. of existing nursery provision is in areas social need. As a result of a provision made over the years through the urban

      1281
      and inner city programmes, priority has always been given by the Department in its nursery building programme, to such areas.
      The Government will continue to support nursery education projects in all these programmes. The allocation from the Department's 1980–81 nursery education building programme will be announced shortly.
      We have provided within the 1980–81 rate support grant settlement for expenditure on under-fives, including those in primary schools, to remain at roughly the present level. While I cannot anticipate the expenditure White Paper for future years, I am confident that we shall be able to maintain a substantial provision for the under-fives, especially if local authorities can find ways of reducing the individual cost of educating a child.
      That could be done. The House knows that, as a result of the drop in the number of children in primary schools, there is substantial vacant capacity or over-capacity in such schools. If local authorities could make use of those classrooms, released as a result of falling primary school rolls, it would be a means of providing for the education of the under-fives that could be achieved without the need for expensive adaptations. It has been put to me that the Department's regulations on the standards for school premises inhibit that, and I am asking my Department to consider whether they are too tough on nursery education premises.
      Mr. Kinnock: Is not the probability of the fulfilment of that desirable end—of taking up places made vacant by the falling number of primary school rolls—diminished significantly by the removal of any form of direct responsibility which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing in the new clause?
      Another matter should be taken into account. There is a significant difference between a position in which the objectives of nursery place provision are not met because of shortages of resources—whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government—and a position in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is actively removing any obligation being imposed upon local education authorities to make such provision. Does not the
      1282
      latter position, which he is now introducing, change the whole nature of the Government's attitude towards the provision of nursery places?
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. The provision that I have described, and the build-up that has taken place, has been at a period when the local education authorities thought that there was no statutory duty on them. It has not been suggested that they have been acting in the belief that there was a statutory duty rather than discretionary powers. We have found that a considerable number of local authorities have already put in bids against the nursery building programme for next year.
      As hon. Members will know, I was asked by the Association of County Councils to consider the introduction of charges for nursery education, and my Department has examined carefully the implications of such a measure. While it is possibly true, as some argue, that a modest charge for nursery education could in some cases help to tip the scales against reducing existing provision, I do not believe that it would lead to the opening of new classes or schools or wider provision.
      Clearly any scheme for charging for nursery education would have to exempt those in receipt of supplementary benefit and family income supplement. Any State scheme for the provision of education for under-fives would have to be subsidised and any extension of that provision, even with the right to charge, would lead inevitably to increased expenditure.
      As I have said, 70 per cent. of the existing nursery provision is made in areas of special social need. I believe that any system of charging—limited as it would have to be in practice to nursery schools and classes rather than reception classes in primary schools—would bring in little income. It would risk depriving of nursery education children who are in the greatest need of its benefits. I have concluded, therefore, that in the present circumstances, it would not be right to introduce charging for nursery education.
      The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is otiose because under section 61 of the 1944 Act it is clear that no charging could be made unless I provide specifically for it in the Bill.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that the Secretary of State said specifically that it would be illegal for any authority to charge for places in nursery schools or classes, and that there must be a change in the law to make that possible. Is that correct?
      Mr. Carlisle: That is exactly what I am saying. Section 61 does not allow charging for State education.
      I do not believe that changing the duty to provide education for the under-fives to a power will in itself cause any reduction in the provision of nursery education. If the resources cannot be made available, the existence of a statutory power will not, as I have attempted to show, do anything to increase that provision. Resources, and not whether it is a power or a duty, are the key.
      It is certainly not my intention that this clause should be seen as an invitation to local authorities to abandon nursery education. The bids that we have received suggest that a substantial number of local authorities are anxious not only to maintain existing provision but to expand it, in spite of the present pressures on local authority finances.
      I am, however, aware that one or two authorities are considering the closure of some or all of their nursery provision. While that is a course of action that would obviously be regretted, locally elected councillors must decide for themselves on these matters.
      Mr. Kinnock: That would not be legal.
      Mr. Carlisle: That would have been legal. I am, however, proposing to place one additional safeguard on such action. I propose to bring the closure of nursery schools within the scope of clause 12, which has not applied to nursery schools in the past. This amendment is an essential part of my overall proposals on nursery education.
      The amendment to clause 12 is designed to ensure that, if a local education authority proposes to cease to maintain a nursery school, it shall be required, in precisely the same way as in the case of a primary or secondary school, to publish its proposal, giving two months for objections to be submitted. In fact, the full provisions of clause 12 will apply, and, unless there are no statutory objec-
      1284
      tions, the decision to approve or reject the proposal will be taken by the Secretary of State as in the normal way.
      I apologise for taking some time in explaining the effect of the new clauses, but I commend them and the amendments to the House.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State rightly said that this was an important new clause. We think that it is one of the most important amendments that has been tabled, and we are disturbed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to seek to write in such an important new clause at this stage in our proceedings. Indeed, I suggest that it would have been more appropriate had the Secretary of State decided to introduce a completely separate Bill on this specific point, because the House does not have sufficient time to discuss this matter fully before the Bill makes further progress.
      The new clause makes a fundamental change to the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State tried to play down that change, and tried to argue that the new clause simply seeks to clarify the position. We do not think that that is the case. We believe that the new clause will have dramatic effects which the Secretary of State has refused to admit.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the decision of Oxfordshire county council. Since this issue was raised, Oxfordshire county council has got a good deal of the blame for the fact that the Government have been considering a change in the law with regard to this clause. Oxfordshire decided that it would try to close its 12 nursery schools and 16 nursery classes, thus depriving 1,500 children of the right to nursery education.
      We must remember why Oxfordshire felt it necessary to embark on that policy in the first place. It was not because people in Oxfordshire suddenly decided that nursery education was a bad thing. It was because the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet decided that local authorities had to make substantial cuts in their expenditure. The pressure for this change came not simply from the county councils but from the Government themselves, and the Government should take responsibility for the changes that are now being introduced.

      1285
      4.15 pm
      The Secretary of State said a great deal about the need for clarifying the 1944 Act. Indeed, most of his speech concentrated on that point. If we look at what has been said over the last few weeks, we find that everyone agrees on what the 1944 Act meant. The legal advisers at the Department of Education and Science agreed. The Attorney-General agreed and Lord Butler agreed. Everyone is now convinced that the 1944 Act placed a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery education.
      The fact that many local authorities failed to provide those facilities, because of lack of resources or for whatever reason, does not alter the meaning of the law. It seems that the law was quite clear. It is important to realise that the new clause does not clarify the law but changes it. That is what the Secretary of State has chosen to do.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman made light of the effects of this change. The first effect is that councils such as Oxfordshire county council will try to go ahead with their plans. Indeed, many others may try to follow them. They may attempt either to close all their nursery schools and classes or to reduce provision dramatically. From now on, there will be nothing in law to stop them doing so. The Secretary of State reminded us of his other amendments to the Bill which bring nursery provision within the scope of section 13 of the 1944 Act. I think he will agree that that is a modified section 13, given the other changes that he is proposing in the Bill.
      The Secretary of State expects to be reassured by this proposal and by his other amendments, but I do not believe that they are reassuring at all. First, it has never been thought necessary to have a procedure for closing nursery schools, because it has never been previously considered possible that local authorities would embark upon the wholesale closure of such schools. It is only because local authorities are now proposing to do so that the new power is needed by the Secretary of State.
      The other more important reason why we cannot get any reassurance from the Secretary of State's other amendments is that, to have any effect, section 13 would have to be used effectively by him. The
      1286
      Secretary of State will have to be prepared to say to Oxfordshire county council "No, you cannot close your nursery schools or nursery classes". Neither this afternoon nor on any other occasion has the right hon. and learned Gentleman said whether he intends to allow local authorities to cut back their provision.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has just said that the Secretary of State had to make up his mind about whether he would give permission for the closure of nursery schools or classes. I listened fairly carefully, and I do not think that the Secretary of State actually said that in order to close a nursery class one needed to go through this procedure. That is one of the most worrying and disturbing aspects of this matter, because most of the expansion of nursery education over recent years has been in the provision of classes. I think that that leaves a major loophole, because classes can be dispensed with without any safeguard whatever. I hope that my hon. Friend will press that point further.
      Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and the Secretary of State is confirming that what he has said is correct. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so keen to clarify the law on this issue, I am surprised that he did not refer to the situation in nursery classes, because they will almost be left in limbo between the nursery schools and the infants' schools of which they are part.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I was careful to say that the provision related only to nursery schools. I considered the question of nursery classes. The nursery class is merely another class within the primary school system, in most cases. Frankly, I do not think that section 13 is the appropriate procedure.
      Mrs. Taylor: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will sit back and watch local authorities closing nursery classes, if that is what they decide, without intervening?
      Mr. Carlisle: Under the provision the local authorities would be free to close nursery classes if they wished.
      Had I not brought in these powers, under the existing 1944 Act there was no reason to prevent Oxfordshire from

      1287
      closing its existing nursery schools without coming to me. Therefore, to suggest that Oxfordshire could not have done it previously but that it now can is quite wrong.
      Mrs. Taylor: What the Secretary of State said does not comply with what the Attorney-General said about the Oxfordshire position. Even so, that was not the point that I put to him. He says now that he has new powers under section 13 to prevent the closure of nursery schools. I asked the Minister whether he was willing to give an assurance that he would not approve the wholesale break-up of nursery education in any area. Will the Minister say "No, you cannot abandon nursery education", or will he stand by what he said about the situation in Somerset? Somerset asked whether it could close its remaining schools. The Minister was reported as saying that, although he would regret a decision by the LEA to close the schools, he would not invoke his statutory powers to enforce his view. That is the report of the situation that arose when Somerset sought advice from the Department. Will the Minister stand by his previous statement, or will he give us an assurance that he will not allow any authority completely to abandon nursery education in its area? That is an important point. If the Minister will not use his new powers under section 13, why does he want them?
      Mr. Carlisle: As the hon. Lady will realise, I cannot give an assurance in the terms that she requests. I can give the assurance that, in normal section 13 procedure, every individual case for a closure must be publicised. There will be an opportunity for people to object. The case must be considered on its merits.
      Mrs. Taylor: But at the end of the day the Secretary of State must make a decision whether to allow a local authority to close its nursery schools. The House would have been reassured if he had said that in general he was against local authorities closing nursery schools. He has not gone as far as that. We should welcome information about the criteria that the Secretary of State would use when he makes these decisions. Indeed, we should welcome more information about the Minister's general attitude towards nursery education. He made
      1288
      some bland statements this afternoon about being in favour of it. However, there is now doubt about how enthusiastic the Government are about nursery education.
      The Secretary of State referred to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the contribution that she made to the improvement of nursery education. We heard a great deal about the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for nursery education, not only in the White Paper, to which the Minister referred, but in parliamentary debates and statements such as this:
      "an historic step forward; giving new opportunities to parents."
      A great deal of elaborate language was used at that time by his right hon. Friend, but all that bold talk led to very little.
      We are now concerned about what is happening to Conservative policy on nursery education. We have been considering some of the statements made over the past few years in Conservative Party manifestos. There has been a great deal of change of emphasis and a reduction of keenness on nursery education. This is alarming. In February 1974 the Conservative Party made a direct commitment:
      "We shall…extend free nursery schooling throughout the country."
      That was bold and direct. By October 1974 the Conservative Party had slightly modified that commitment. Instead of promising to provide such education, it recognised the need for it. By the time that it came to the writing of "The Right Approach", the Conservative Party thought that there should be special assistance for deprived children. By the time of the 1979 manifesto there was little talk of nursery education—simply the note that every child should have the chance to progress. That is where the Secretary of State now leaves the situation.
      Mr. Carlisle: From 1974 until 1979 the then Labour Government reduced their provision for nursery education from £21½ million a year to £2·7 million a year, and specifically advised local authorities, as a way of reducing expenditure, to reduce the numbers of under-fives they took into their schools.
      Mrs. Taylor: We are greatly touched by the Secretary of State's deep concern.

      1289
      However, the majority of local authorities that refused to take up their nursery allocations were Conservative controlled and, by and large, Labour local authorities have a far better record on nursery expenditure than do Tory local authorities.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that about two years ago Mrs. Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State, gave figures in this Chamber showing that 80 per cent. of Conservative councils had failed to take up their allocations for nursery provision?
      Mrs. Taylor:That is a fact. Indeed, some Labour local authorities tried to take up their allocations in their place. That is why so many Labour authorities were able to do something in terms of expanding nursery education.
      We were talking about the progress, or lack of it, of Conservative philosophy on nursery education. I think that last October the Secretary of State, in reply to a question, stated that he hoped to be able, over the coming year, to increase the number of nursery places available in this country. We were slightly surprised because the Secretary of State said that he would increase the number of nursery places although reducing expenditure on nursery education. We are now waiting for the Secretary of State to tell us that abolishing a legal obligation to provide nursery education will also result in more places.
      If the Secretary of State were concerned about nursery education he would not be introducing this new clause at this stage. He said that he was in favour of nursery education but said little about the dangers of the clause. He said little about the damage that would be done if the clause were passed and local authorities took advantage of it.
      Does the Secretary of State realise the hardship that would be caused by a reduction in nursery education? Does he believe in the educational and social value of nursery education? Does he agree it is important that children from deprived backgrounds can take advantage of this better start in education? If he does, he cannot go ahead with the clause or allow local authorities to close their nursery schools.
      1290
      4.30pm
      The clause has been introduced to allow local education authorities to save money, but this is a false economy. Unless children get a good start in life more problems will be created both inside and outside the education service. We are concerned about what will happen in practical terms if local authorities take advantage of the clause. Some local authorities will close nursery schools. What will happen then to the buildings and the outstanding loans on them? Will the buildings be hired out to groups who want to run private nurseries? The demand will still exist. If that happens, and if fees of £90 or £100 a term are charged, many children needing nursery education will be deprived of it and there will be hardship.
      There is no alternative. Perhaps by the time the Bill comes back from another place the Minister will have modified it further by introducing an assisted places scheme to allow deprived children to attend nursery schools.
      The clause is extremely important. It could lead to the break-up of nursery education, and it will certainly cause a great deal of hardship to many children and their parents. Even if the Secretary of State were to accept all the Opposition amendments to the clause, we would still think that it was inadequate and should be withdrawn.
      We have tabled amendment (b) because we believe that nursery education should be available as of right to every 4-year-old. We know that there are problems in achieving that target, but, unless the target is written into the legislation and unless the Secretary of State is keen to see that it is achieved, there will be little pressure by central Government on local authorities to achieve it. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to encourage local authorities to provide more nursery education. That means taking legal steps to ensure that they do, as well as providing resources.
      The Secretary of State referred to amendment (a). The Opposition welcome the Minister's statement that he is unwilling to introduce charges for nursery education and will not do so, but the reason he gave is the wrong reason. He said that it would not raise much money anyway. We think that charges are wrong in

      1291
      principle and that the Minister should have said so.
      Amendment (d) provides for children who need to be compensated because they are deprived of certain advantages. We think that nursery education should be provided as of right for children whose families are in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit or who are in a one-parent family. In Committee the Minister acknowledged that some children are in special need of nursery education. He therefore has a responsibility to ensure that that commitment is carried out by local authorities and should not just sit back and hope that it all works out well in the end.
      Amendment No. 90 provides that nursery schools in existence at present should not be closed. If the Minister is confident, as he says, that the clause will not lead to the early closure of nursery schools, I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. It puts into the Bill only what the Minister has implied. If existing nursery schools are to be protected, the Minister should be willing to accept the amendment.
      We hope that the Minister will accept our amendments but, even if he accepts them all, the clause will still be wrong. The clause attacks the most vulnerable children, the under-fives. It attacks the children who most need help. It is a false economy because nursery education is an important investment in the future.
      I hope that the Minister will think again about the clause and be quick to come to the House and say that he has changed his mind, and instead of removing the duty of local authorities to provide nursery education will reinforce that duty. If clarification of the 1944 Act is necessary, there should be a movement in the other direction, not in the direction that will result in the break-up of nursery education.
      Mr. Chris Patten: After listening to the legal arguments about the precise obligations of local education authorities under section 8(2) of the Education Act 1944 and reading the articles written by the perceptive and intelligent correspondent of The Times Educational Supplement on this question, I am drawn
      1292
      irresistibly to the conclusion that the whole argument would have appealed enormously to Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot. In due course it may warm up the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) but, with great respect as the lawyers say, I do not think it lit much of a fire under the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), except for the good joke about the assisted places scheme.
      I think it was Mr. Dooley who said that what is a stone wall for a layman is usually a triumphal arch for a lawyer. Those of us who are interested in the greater provision of nursery education must be concerned principally with how we get over the stone wall. Before attempting to effect that scramble I hope I shall be excused for trying briefly, and without the advantage of a legal education, to effect a passage through the triumphal arch.
      I was surprised by the legal advice given by the Department of Education and Science and I would be surprised if the Department were not equally surprised. If it means anything, it means that every local education authority in the country has been in breach of its statutory obligations for the past 36 years.
      If we go back to the tablets of stone—the 1944 Act—we see the first distinction between nursery, primary and secondary schools in the difference between the obligation upon parents of children over 5 to send their children to school and the lack of that obligation on parents of children under 5. If we go on to the second distinction—I imagine it was meant as such by the draftsmen of the Act—and look at section 8(1) we see that local education authorities are given a duty to provide secondary schools and primary schools. Subsection (2) says:
      "In fulfilling their duties…local education authorities shall, in particular, have regard to the need for securing that provision is made for…nursery schools".
      What exactly having "regard to the need" actually means is a question that suggests that we are back in Beachcomber country.
      If we look at the Committee stage of the 1944 Act we do not get much more wisdom on the subject. An amendment to clause 8 was moved which sought to shift nursery schools from subsection (2)

      1293
      to subsection (1). In resisting the amendment the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Education said:
      "I think there is no doubt, after the former discussion, that the provision of nursery schools is a part of primary education. The Board are fully seized of the desire of the country that it should be expanded, but it does not appear that any substantial gain is made bringing it into 8(1)(a) and leaving it out of 8(2)(b)."—[Official Report, 15 February 1944; Vol. 397, c. 98.]
      As the last 36 years have shown, how wrong he turned out to be!
      The reason why the Parliamentary Secretary resisted that amendment from the then hon. Member for Kilmarnock, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, was that the Board felt—a point that is made in Lord Butler's memoirs to which I shall return with enthusiasm later—that, however much nursery education was desirable, it did not think that it was absolutely essential. In those heady days of extremely valuable and constructive consensus politics at the end of the war—
      Mr. Spearing: During the war.
      Mr. Patten: During the war, that is right. In the era of the Post-War Problems Committee it was generally felt that all good men and true would be in favour of creating Utopia as soon as the peace that was just round the corner came along. However, there were clearly some bits of Utopia that were thought to be more important and necessary than others.
      I turn now to the evidence of Lord Butler, that political genius and architect of the 1944 Act. He said recently—this is borne out by his speech on Second Reading of the Bill in 1944—that it was always the intention to impose a duty on local education authorities to provide nursery schools. But that was not how he put it in his memoirs which he wrote 27 conceivably law-breaking years later. In his memoirs, talking about his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord mentions the statutory duties imposed on local education authorities and goes on:
      "For children under the age of five, the aim"—
      note the use of the word "aim"—
      "was a sufficient supply of nursery schools".
      He goes on later in that chapter to set out the limited number of failures of the 1944 Act and he includes among them
      1294
      the failure to achieve that aim. For those of us who believe in the efficacy of nursery schools it seems, unfortunately, that the provision of nursery places for as many children as want them did not come within what Lord Butler would have called the art of the possible.
      4.45 pm
      After the 1944 Act, distinction was continually drawn between mandatory and permissive powers. As early as 1946 the Fabian Society—I dare say that it sometimes gets things right—was urging the then Labour Government to make the section 8 provisions mandatory rather than permissive. That distinction between mandatory and permissive has been drawn in various books and textbooks ever since. For example, that distinction is drawn in the excellent book on nursery schools by Tessa Blackstone. Wherever Tessa Blackstone's political sympathies lie, they are not, on the whole, with the Conservatives.
      Mr. Flannery: No.
      Mr. Patten: Nor are they with the Foreign Office, as I suspect the characteristically urbane intervention by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is suggesting.
      In 1951 four county councils decided that they would do away with nursery schools. Presumably they thought that the powers under the 1944 Act were permissive. We then come to the interesting case of the intervention of Lord Hailsham in the affairs of Somerset in 1957. Until this afternoon we thought that that would not be able to shed much light on the present position, as we were led to believe—again by that perceptive correspondent of The Times Educational Supplement—that the Department had lost the directive. We now understand that the dispute about whether Lord Hailsham was acting within the powers under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the local authority was behaving unreasonably or under section 99 on the ground that it was in breach of its statutory duty has been resolved, because he issued his directive under section 99.
      If that was so, it is all the more surprising that three years later in 1960 the Ministry of Education issued a circular telling local authorities not to provide any more nursery places. It is quite

      1295
      extraordinary that at that time the Ministry did not seem to think that failure to provide nursery places was the same as a failure to comply with the law.
      That is how things remained until, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the Plowden committee reported and until the White Paper of 1972, the excellent objectives of which, were, alas, scuppered by the failures of the economy.
      To summarise the position since 1944, at the end of the war, partly as a result of the experience of evacuation and the fact that many people had witnessed, for the first time, social and educational deprivation and under-privilege among too many children in this county, nursery education was regarded, in the words of "1066 and All That", as a good thing. But because in the 1940s there was a lack of trained teachers, a high birth rate and economic problems, because in the 1950s other educational priorities such as the reduction of class sizes, were established, and because of economic failure in the 1960s and 1970s, we never managed to turn that "very good thing," as some of us would argue, into nursery places for all those who wanted them.
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West. The new clause does clarify the position, though I accept that the present position is pretty miserable and both parties are responsible for it. The amendment to clause 12 is conceivably a small mercy for which we should be proportionately grateful. But what do we do now about the admirable objective of Lord Butler?
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that the new clause clarified the position. He did not explain how it does so. Will he explain how it clarifies section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944? I do not know what he means.
      Mr. Patten: I have been seeking to argue for more than long enough that at best the situation since 1944 has been exceptionally confused. Since 1944 there has not been a statutory obligation on local education authorities under section 8.
      I began by saying that I was extremely surprised by the legal advice that the Department seems to have been given and
      1296
      that it is now applying. The clause clarifies a rather sad position for all who believe in greater nursery provision.
      Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman seems to be agreeing that, for example, Oxfordshire county council was not acting illegally when it chose in November to adopt a policy that would have meant the ending of nursery education in that county. If the county council was not acting illegally under the law as it was then understood, why was it necessary even to introduce what the hon. Gentleman calls clarification, let alone the much more accurate term that has been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West—namely, changing the law?
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically obtuse. I have already said that if Oxfordshire county council was breaking the law at least four county councils were doing so in 1951. Probably every local authority has broken it since 1944. According to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, the Department broke the law in 1960 in issuing its circular. The hon. Gentleman should make the intellectual effort to grasp that.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman tender the same advice, possibly with a little less condescension, to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General? On this issue the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have the same opinion as myself and almost everyone else.
      Mr. Patten: I am sorry to have stung the hon. Gentleman. He has been extremely kind and courteous to me in the past. I do not want to annoy him. He is the last person in the House to whom I would condescend.
      I began by using the most legalistic language. I dotted my speech with "great respects". I said that I did not go along entirely with the Attorney-General's advice. I do not want to put it any stronger than that. If the 1944 Act is as the hon. Gentleman claims, every local authority throughout the country has been breaking it for the past 36 years.
      I return to the objective of greater under-fives provision. I believe in its importance in educational and social terms. I have seen how much my own children have gained from it. It is a

      1297
      considerable pity—indeed, it is a great deal more than that—that more children have not had the benefit of nursery education.
      Nursery provision in my constituency is woefully bad. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with some encouragement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will help to put that right by giving early approval to the application under urban aid for another nursery class at Twerton. I am glad to see that I have the support of my right hon. and learned Friend.
      I do not wish to blame anyone in particular for the position in my constituency or generally throughout the country. That would be much too partisan an approach. Until those who believe in the importance of nursery education convince the rest of society that it should receive priority, until we convince a Government that nursery education should be an integral part of family policy, until we can convince a Government that it is necessary to have a family policy at all, and until we provide the resources to pay for it, the situation will not change. The present situation will remain irrespective of whichever party is on the Government side of the House. Until that new age dawns, and until we are able to change attitudes towards nursery education, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department will undertake certain initiatives.
      In addition to putting in a good word for the Twerton nursery class, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services of the need to try to pull together all the strands of provision for the under-fives. It is little short of a scandal that despite the report of a few years ago of the "Think Tank" on a joint approach to social policy, and despite the arrival and all too unfortunate departure of that excellent creation of the late Richard Cross-man, the co-ordinating unit for the social services in the Cabinet Office, we seldom take a broader view of education and social policy. We tend still to consider policy in departmentalised blocks. We seem never to recognise how one policy affects another and how one policy can support another.
      1298
      Secondly, I should like to see the Department of Education and Science encouraging local education authorities—I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend speak about this—to take advantage of empty classrooms as a consequence of falling school rolls. I should like to see the Department encouraging LEAs to use to the best advantage all the resources that they now have at their disposal. There is a great deal of untapped voluntary effort. There is an excellent pre-school play group movement. As I have said, there are empty classrooms and nursery teachers and nursery classes.
      At the risk of being a shade controversial, and at the risk of seeming too much of an intellectual protege of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), there is a resource that I should like to see the Government tapping in a more open-minded manner. In the next two days I should prefer to be supporting the Government in introducing a policy to give local authorities the authority to charge for nursery school provision rather than for transport, provided that there is adequate free provision for those in need.
      In the continuing absence—I imagine that it will be a permanent absence—of the money-bearing trees of which the hon. Member for Bedwellty dreams, we should be trying during a difficult economic period to do everything that we can to use all the resources available to make better provision for the under-fives.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the £54 million that has gone on private education should have gone on nursery education?
      Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is wrong to say that £54 million has gone to private education.
      Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend should have said "is going".
      Mr. Patten: I did not have the advantage of sitting opposite the hon. Member for Bedwellty while the Bill was being discussed in Committee. I understand that he spent much of the time talking about other matters. As I understand it, the assisted places scheme, which will begin next year, will start with provision

      1299
      of £5 million or £6 million and not £54 million. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the £54 million will be additional moneys.
      Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that 131 Labour Members went to grammar schools and 26 to public schools? That represents more than 60 per cent. of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Will he reflect upon the somewhat hypocritical motives of those who, having had the advantage of that type of education, now seek to prevent others from taking advantage of it?
      Mr. Patten: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will develop it in his usual style and brio in the months and years ahead, the electors of Preston being sensible enough to return him to this place.
      I hope that in making use of all the available resources we shall live up to the spirit of section 8(1) and (2) of the Education Act 1944, whatever the letters of those subsections say or do not say.
      5 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In speaking to this group of amendments, I look to see if there is any good news. There is not much good news though the Opposition should welcome the Minister's firm statement that there will be no charge for nursery education. When I tabled the amendment referred to by the Minister we had considerable fears that he was under some pressure to introduce charges for nursery education.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has shown us that that pressure still exists within the Conservative Party and I welcome the Minister's statement. I now accept that the amendment is not necessary in the Bill but it was necessary to get it on the Amendment Paper in order that we might get the statement that the Minister is totally against charges.
      I wish that the Minister had been against them in principle as well as in practice. I got the impression from his speech that he was against charges because of practical difficulties and because they would not raise much money, rather than on the principle that there should be free education. I suppose we should
      1300
      also welcome the fact that the Minister is still indicating that nursery education should be expanded. That ideal was watered down in the Conservative manifesto.
      It is not much use Ministers continuing to say that they believe in nursery education unless they can offer concrete evidence of proposals to move in that direction. There was no such proposal in the Minister's speech. Will it be the grandchildren, or the great grandchildren of the children who are now being refused nursery education who will eventually find universal provision of nursery places? It is time the Government indicated when we might move towards that goal. There are arguments about how revenues from North Sea oil should be used. If we were to invest some of it during the 1980s in nursery education we would see a return on that investment long after the oil revenues have vanished.
      One of the disturbing facets of the Minister's speech was the news that 75 per cent. only of socially disadvantaged children get the chance to go to nursery school. We should at least guarantee a place for those children. We should remember that though many nursery schools are in deprived areas there is an increase in the number of socially disadvantaged people living in relatively affluent areas. We should make sure that there is provision for those people as well as for those in socially disadvantaged areas. The Minister should have accepted sub-amendment (d) which urges that some groups of children should be guaranteed nursery education.
      On the wider issues, the Tory Party has made a great deal of our education standards particularly in our primary schools. The first requirement for children entering a primary school is that they should have the skills necessary to take advantage of the education offered. Large numbers of children start school without having a command of spoken English. Unless they have that command, it is almost impossible to teach them to read. I have on occasion come across children who could only with great difficulty master the art of turning the squiggles on the paper into sounds but who, having pronounced the sounds, had no clue as to what the words meant. The major task of nursery education is to ensure that by the time a child reaches the age of 5 he

      1301
      should have a reasonable command of the English language so that when he attempts to master the art of reading he can understand the meaning of words. Children should not have to face the double task of turning symbols into sounds as well as having to find meanings for the sounds themselves.
      If we wish to develop numeracy, a basic early understanding through play of shapes, sizes and spatial relationships is the key to success. Nursery education can play a major role in that context.
      We should look carefully at the problem of falling rolls. When the Labour Party was in government, it claimed that we were doing well for nursery education because a bigger percentage of children in that age group was getting into nursery schools. The reality was that a larger percentage was getting in because of falling numbers. We were not providing many extra places.
      The Minister suggested that in looking at our standards we ought to see whether nursery classes could be financed on the cheap. I hope that the Minister will expand later on standards as they affect classroom space and other provisions in nursery schools because I found that a disturbing aspect of his speech.
      I agree that provision need not be palatial but it seems a dangerous concept that children in nursery schools could make do with lower standards than in other sectors of education. I believe that people who are disturbed at existing low standards would want to see them improved. The Government should have been able to accept amendment (b) in the light of the suggestion that statutory provision should be made for four-year-olds and above. That is a modest suggestion.
      On the question of closures it seemed that the Minister was being helpful when he said that he would make it difficult for local authorities to close nursery schools. Can he give us some assurances on that because there are children—not many—who are fortunate enough to get into nursery schools at the age of 3 or just over? If a local authority proposes to close nursery schools, will the children already there be guaranteed continued
      1302
      nursery education until they move into the infants department? Or will the Minister allow a local authority to permit children to have one year of nursery education and then, because of closure, have to miss a year before they go into the infants department? The Minister should make clear to any local authority proposing closures that they must be phased in order to ensure that children are not suddenly deprived of nursery education.
      I was disturbed to realise that the Minister did not intend to compel the local authorities to establish a procedure for the reduction of nursery classes. The greatest expansion in recent years has taken place in that area. If the Minister has any belief in nursery education he should insist that local authorities at least inform him of their plans so that he may express a view on the closing down of nursery classes as opposed to nursery school. The Minister must also take into account the implications for continuity. Though I believe there are now fewer nursery classes admitting three-year-old children, most of them tend to take children at 4 years of age. I hope that there will be a categoric guarantee from the Minister that no child who started at a nursery class would be made to spend a year or six months at home because there was no further nursery provision.
      It is a sad day when a Government allow or encourage local authorities to reduce their commitment to nursery education. We should be firmly committed to nursery education and be making the resources available for it. I hope that my hon. Friends will support amendments (d) and (b). Even if we succeed on those amandments I hope that we will still be able to throw out the whole of the new clause.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I note that new clause 1(1) says quite clearly that local authorities
      "shall have power to establish nursery schools, to maintain such schools established by them or a former authority".
      In bringing this point before the House I note that the Secretary of State may support closures where they are requested or where there is pressure for them. I have confidence in the compassionate attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend in these matters.

      1303
      Until we heard what the Department of Education and Science said recently nursery education has always been regarded as being voluntarily provided. Pressure has been built up through the publication of league tables setting out what various local authorities provide. We have seen such leagues in Hansard, in The Times Educational Supplement and so on. They have been of valuable assistance in providing pressure to build up the nursery provision that we now have.
      There has been other pressure—particularly from parents. Additionally, nobody in education would not acknowledge the pressure that has been brought by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to improve primary and nursery education in this country. Such voluntary pressure should not be regarded as insignificant or ignored as lightweight. It has brought about the present position in nursery education, which is not marvellous, but it has improved in many cases.
      I believe that the new clauses will be interpreted sensibly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and I am sure that he will do all that he can to preach the deep value of nursery education. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said that Conservatives have no philosophy on or genuine commitment to nursery education. I am sure she knows that that is not so and that we have a deep commitment to the nursery stage. I spent all my working life in education until I came to this place in May of last year, and I believe that nursery education is where it all begins.
      This is a time when many would not be prepared to see more spent on nursery education. I believe that such people are blinkered and that we must persuade society to pay the necessary taxes for the sort of provision that we want. There is no substitute for the role of the mother with children from the ages of 1 to 5. That fact has not been mentioned so far in the debate and I believe that it should be.
      Miss Joan Lestor: What about the father?
      Mr. Greenway: However, the role of the mother should not detract from the value of nursery education. The social-
      1304
      ising of children in nursery schools is of great value. They learn to interact with one another and with adults. Often for the first time, those children who live in deprived and miserable backgrounds have the opportunity to see a bright environment for a few hours a day. I was impressed by the compassionate way in which my right hon. and learned Friend brought out such points.
      Nursery schools provide accommodation for children of single parents. They provide help for children both of whose parents are working. Expert teachers are on hand to help children to begin to stand on their ownfeet—that is so much of what life is about. Children start to plug into the learning process through the high pupil-teacher ratio in nursery schools of about 1:6. The ratio is that high because it must be at that level, and that is one reason why nursery education is so expensive. I believe that the new clauses do nothing to prevent the process from continuing.
      Playgroups have been referred to in the debate. In playgroups there is a pupil-staff ratio of about 1:30, but they seek to carry out more of a child minding process, valuable though that is. That distinction needs to be made. We are living in an age of tight budgets, particularly in some areas. That means that cuts have been necessary in education. It would be wrong to cut the provision for children of statutory age to provide for those of nursery age, highly desirable though that is. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we must avoid that at all costs. It is not that early education is not important, but education at the statutory age is absolutely crucial.
      I am keen on the provision of day nurseries. That matter comes up elsewhere in the Bill. They provide great opportunity for deprived children. The vital thing about nursery education is that we should not look on it as providing for children who are well provided for in other ways. Local authorities should be subjected to voluntary pressure to provide for the disabled and deprived in their community.
      I place particular priority on education for children of statutory age. More funds should be available for teachers, buildings, recreational facilities teaching materials and so on. However, resources

      1305
      permitting, I should like to see as much provision as possible for day nurseries and nursery schools catering for all children, particularly the less fortunate.
      5.15 pm
      I should like now to make one or two educational observations as an educationalist, to illustrate why I believe that nursery education is desirable. Nursery education provides an environment in which small children can benefit from relationships with adults outside the home. Partly, it is a social process, but it is also substantially an educational process. Small children learn to relate to adults within the home, but it is another matter to take them outside their home and secure environment and get them to relate to other children and adults. It is important for them to learn that, in order to make a smooth transition into primary school. Nursery schools provide freedom of movement for children in, for example, small flats. Nothing is more restrictive for a child's mental intellectual and social development than to be in a confined space and unimaginative surroundings. Nursery schools provide space and imaginative and creative surroundings in which children can benefit from the freedom of movement that we all need at an early age.
      The new clause facilitates that aspect of nursery education. The essential development of children comes through playing with sand, clay, and so-on. It is crucial for children to learn to create shapes and move objects and blocks, clay and putty. In nursery education children are in a benevolently supervised environment, with a high pupil-teacher ratio, and they are helped to play creatively.
      In a strictly educational sense, there are opportunities for mothers to learn through the development of their children. That is important, and it will be facilitated by the new clause. Through the guidance of nursery schools, teachers and head teachers, they can learn a great deal about how to bring up children. Often it is here that parents will begin to see the needs of their children for the first time. The transition to primary school—or to the first school if there is a three tier system—is greatly assisted by nursery education.
      I am therefore at one with the Secretary of State. This is a crucial area. We are
      1306
      strong supporters of nursery education. It is of crucial importance to the early, and therefore later, development of the child. The more the better. Nursery education must result from the voluntary pressure of parents. We can and must bring pressure to bear on local education authorities to provide such facilities. However, nursery education will not die as a result of the new clause. Instead, we shall rely more than ever on parents, teachers, Members of Parliament, councillors and all those concerned with the welfare of small children. We must remember that small children grow into bigger children and citizens. That is important for the future of this country. If we all play our role, we shall go forward with fresh vision.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). However, I wish that he had reached the correct conclusion. If he had been true to the earlier part of his speech, where he rightly placed great importance on the provision of nursery education, he should have agreed to come into the Lobby with us. He should vote against the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is one of the few Conservative Members to have spent most of his working life at the chalk face of education. I hope that he will tell the Secretary of State where to get off and that he will not become a "Yes-man" for this reactionary Tory Government.
      These two new clauses are a measure of the Government's contempt for the education of young children. They have introduced these clauses at a late stage. That is nothing but a measure of their contempt for democratic debate and parliamentary scrutiny. They are trying to get this rotten legislation on to the statute book within a minimum period of time. That will allow only a minimum amount of examination by hon. Members, and it will allow virtually no examination and scrutiny by members of the public. Perhaps it was the Secretary of State's deliberate strategy to wait until the final kick of the ball before coming out with these amendments, in order to minimise our opportunity to attack him. It will minimise also the opportunities of those outside to provide constructive alternatives to such reactionary proposals. If I

      1307
      am disappointed with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I am more than disappointed with the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is interesting that not one of his fellow Ministers has had the courage to put his name to new clause 2.
      Mr. Greenway: Did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) believe that a statutory duty existed to provide nursery education before the recent advice from the Department of Education and Science? I did not know that such a duty existed, and I believe that very few people in Britain did.
      Mr. Canavan: I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. However, I took the trouble to read the Act covering England and Wales as well as the 1962 Act covering Scotland. The Scottish Act is probably even stronger in its wording. It appears to me that there is an obligation on local education authorities in Scotland, as well as on those in England and Wales, to provide nursery education.
      Mr. Greenway: That is not what I said. Did the hon. Gentleman believe, in 1970, that there was a statutory duty to provide nursery education? If he did, why did he not fight then as he is fighting now?
      Mr. Canavan: I was not a Member of Parliament in 1970. I have always taken the view that there is some form of legal obligation upon local education authorities to make some provision. Perhaps the strength of that obligation was not as great as the obligation to provide primary and secondary education. However, I held a common belief that an obligation existed to provide pre-school education.
      Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend concede that in Scottish colleges of education—now under fire from the Government—great stress has always been placed on the obligation of the teaching profession to campaign for nursery education? That was stressed against the backdrop of the 1962 Act. Is it not a fact that when we were students at such colleges of education, staff propaganda was an essential part of our courses?
      Mr. Canavan: I never believed everything that they told us at colleges of
      1308
      education. However, I agree that they laid proper emphasis on the provision and extension of nursery education in Scotland and elsewhere.
      Mr. Chris Patten Mr. Chris Patten rose—
      Mr. Canavan: I have hardly finished the first paragraph of my speech. However, as the hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene, I shall give way.
      Mr. Patten: I am keen to intervene because the hon. Gentleman has talked about two types of obligation. One apparently carries statutory requirements, and the other carries something else. Will he define the two forms of obligation more clearly, as well as their legal effects?
      Mr. Canavan: I do not know about Bath, but in Scotland a local education authority has a statutory duty to provide primary and secondary education for all children. As regards nursery education, it has never been understood that the obligation was equally comprehensive. However, there is an obligation to provide some nursery education. As a result of the new clauses the Government will remove that statutory obligation.
      I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland alone has seen fit to put his name to new clause 2. The clause does not have the support of his hon. Friends. Not even his co-Ministers appear to support him. Once again he has acted as a lackey for his fellow public school boys in the Cabinet. Instead of looking at Scottish legislation and the needs of our children, he has merely followed suit. If his colleagues in the Cabinet think that something is good enough for England and Wales, he thinks that it must be good enough for Scotland. He gets out his old autograph book and signs his name in support of the new clause. That is not good enough.
      I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here. However, at least the Minister responsible for education in Scotland is present. That is more than could be said during the Committee stage. At that time, we only had the inexpert advice of someone who had little, if any, knowledge of Scottish education—the Minister with responsibility for health at the Scottish Office. I thought that that was a tacit admission by the Government that the Bill is attacking

      1309
      not only children's educational standards but their health standards.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for education is about the only Conservative Member who went to a Scottish non-fee paying school. He has at least some experience of what might be called the mainstream of Scottish education. I hope that he can tell us why the Secretary of State for Scotland has produced the new clause at this later stage.
      5.30 pm
      Mention has been made of the Attorney-General's statements about the legality of present obligations for the provision of nursery education. We are entitled to a similar statement from the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Where is the hon. and learned Gentleman? Is he away collecting his exorbitant expenses from the Scottish courts, or does he merely not have an interest in education?
      Like most ministers at the Scottish Office, the hon. and learned Gentleman has virtually no experience of the mainstream of Scottish education, but he is the only member of the Government qualified to speak on Scottish law. He should have had the courtesy to give us his opinon. I do not expect that he knows much about nursery education, but he could at least explain the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. His comments may have rendered some of my earlier remarks unnecessary. We need a clear statement of the law as it stands before the Government starts butchering Education Acts which are perfectly adequate.
      The Minister said that the purpose of these two new clauses was basically clarification. Nevertheless, their effect will be to remove statutory obligations. Local authorities will be discouraged from making adequate provision for nursery education. That is what it is all about. It is similar to the relaxation of the law in depriving children of their legal rights to school meals, milk and transport. All the measures are aimed at implementing proposed Tory cuts in educational expenditure between the current year and the next year of £411 million over the whole of the United Kingdom and £41 million in Scotland. The Government are making it easier for local authorities to implement the cuts. They are encouraging local authorities to
      1310
      abandon what have been considered to be their statutory obligations. That is the thinking behind the new clauses.
      If there is any educational philosophy behind all this, it appears to be that this Tory Government think that nursery education is an unecessary frill. For them it is not a priority. It is dispensable, and they can therefore remove the statutory duty on local authorities and allow them to abandon any commitment to provide nursery education. The truth is the exact opposite. Far from being a frill, nursery education is almost a necessity for many children, and that is particularly true in areas of multiple deprivation.
      The Minister with responsibility for education at the Scottish Office represents an Edinburgh constituency, but I believe that was brought up and educated in Greenock, and he should know about such areas of deprivation in Clydeside. Whether social or educational, multiple deprivation begins at an early age—long before a child goes to school. We should aim for positive discrimination in favour of deprived children at an early age, before the age of 5, when they would normally be enrolled at a primary school.
      Various categories of families with particular difficulties and needs who should have priority have been mentioned—one-parent families and families with working mothers. Partly because of the Government's economic policies, some mothers are virtually forced to work to supplement the family income. Many may prefer to stay at home and look after the children until they are old enough to go to primary school. Albeit reluctantly, some of these mothers have to find jobs because of the economic climate and the family's financial circumstances.
      They will find it impossible to do that unless their child is enrolled at nursery school or nursery class or they have someone to look after the baby. However, nursery education should never be regarded simply as a child-minding service. It is not. We should certainly try to look after the needs of single parents, over 80 per cent. of whom are women, and mothers who have to go out to work. However, in considering nursery education, the needs of the child should be paramount. There is plenty of evidence that nursery education can do much to compensate for disadvantage in early life

      1311
      and fulfil the child's educational and social needs.
      Some primary teachers used to feel a certain antipathy towards nursery education. They perhaps thought that nursery education was covering certain areas which should more properly be covered by primary schools. Some of that criticism was misinformed. The vast majority of primary teachers are now in favour of nursery education.
      I have a magazine from an organisation called the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, which is not by any means the most radical teachers' association. That association conducted a study of what infant and junior teachers thought about nursery education. It reported:
      "The children were able to benefit from an environment helping language development—through talking with adults and other children, stories and rhymes, and through activities, creative work, displays, pictures, which all stimulate language."
      It went on to state:
      "Nearly all the teachers agreed that a signal benefit of nursery education lies in the confidence children gain from mixing with other children at an early stage. The consensus was well summed up by a Huddersfield reception class teacher who suggested that the child who has been to a nursery school tended to settle down better when he comes into school, and was more able to co-operate with his peer group and to relate to adults."
      Those are examples of opinions of primary teachers on nursery education.
      Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend remember that last year the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education produced a pamphlet on nursery education, thus proving that teachers at the top level of teaching are deeply interested in nursery education, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend has just given?
      Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is right. It is not just primary and nursery teachers who are in favour of the expansion of nursery eduction. Virtually all educationists are unanimous in their approval of nursery education and the need for its expansion.
      We should aim at legislation and the back-up resources to give all children over 3 years of age the right to a place in a nursery school or class. Priority should be given to children with special needs,
      1312
      such as the physically and mentally disabled, those from single-parent families and those who are victims of multiple deprivation.
      If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, he seemed to suggest in an intervention that the last Labour Government slipped up in this respect. I certainly have never claimed that the record of the last Labour Government was perfect in educational matters—particularly nursery education. However, I understand that during the life of the last Labour Government there was a steady improvement in the number of places made available.
      It has been rightly pointed out that the reason why capital investment was not as high as it should have been was that many local education authorities, particularly those under Tory control, did not take advantage of the money that the Labour Government were willing to give them to build new nursery schools or provide extra places.
      We are now presented with a great opportunity. Recent demographic trends indicate a drop in the number of primary pupils. In fact, most primary schools have suffered a decline in the roll in recent years. We have had the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that there is a surplus of accommodation and teachers. What alack of imagination they show! They hold up their hands and complain that we have too many classrooms and too many teachers in under-used schools. They talk about the possibility of closing classes, courses and even schools, and of sacking teachers. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for educational matters, recently declared that local education authorities in Scotland were over-staffed by 2,600 teachers. His solution to the problems of Scottish education is to sack 2,600 teachers. But he is also responsible for employment—or unemployment—in Scotland, and that unemployment is now well over the 200,000 mark—the second worst total since the Second World War.
      Ministers have shown no imagination about using under-used resources in human terms and in accommodation terms. I am not suggesting that every unemployed teacher or every teacher

      1313
      threatened with unemployment would necessarily be qualified to teach preschool children, but some might be and others might be trained to do so. Have the Government undertaken any study of such matters? Have they thought about using teachers' aptitudes in whatever area of education they are qualified for?
      I mentioned that the demographic trends that we have witnessed in recent years have presented us with a golden opportunity to extend educational provision to more people in the community and over wider areas. Instead of grasping this opportunity, this Government are turning the clock back. This is another reactionary move by this most reactionary of Cabinets, and yet another attack on the rights of children. The principle seems to be that the smaller the children the harder they hit them.
      I hope that the House will reject these new clauses, because they are completely contrary to what we should be trying to do in extending pre-school education and education in general for the community at large.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Tom Benyon: I come to this debate in a somewhat confused way. My great-great-great-grandfather was a famous parliamentarian and spent his parliamentary career in the other place. He was noted as the worst Prime Minister that this country has ever seen—despite much competition in the recent past—by giving away, in an absentminded moment, the American colonies. In fact, he initiated the famous phrase about a politician who met every problem with his mouth wide open because he spent most of his parliamentary career asleep. However, my great-great-great-grandfather was a very confused man, just as I am by various clauses in this Bill.
      My constituency happens to be within the area of the Oxfordshire county council. I am well familiar with all the problems of that area. I am familiar with the problems of the proposed closing of nursery schools and the proposed charging for buses. I am also well aware of all the other problems with which the Oxfordshire county council is finding it difficult to grapple.
      I believe that the councillors are on the horns of a dilemma because they
      1314
      have been diligent in the past and responsible in responding to Governments of all political complexions who have asked for cuts in public expenditure—and not all councils have responded in such a way. Now they are in difficulty because we are making requests for further cuts. These cuts will take place in services and will cut deeply into the bone. I want to stress that the Oxford county council quite rightly believes that it is acting in accordance with the wishes of this Government just as it acted in accordance with the wishes of previous Governments. It should be remembered that this Government have not set a precedent in asking local authorities to make cuts. Oxford is simply attempting to save money and one way of doing so is by closing nursery schools in the area.
      There are many schools of thought on this matter. Most hon. Members on both sides agree that a system of nursery school education is highly desirable. There are some people who believe that it caters only for idle parents, but I do not subscribe to that view. There is another school of thought that says that, because William Shakespeare, Winston Churchill and many of us here today did not go to nursery school, the whole idea is unnecessary—after all, look at us now. Nevertheless, I happen to believe in it passionately and I am a fully paid-up member of the "I-like-nursery-schools" fan club. It would be nice if Oxford could not only retain its existing nursery school structure, but could expand it in future.
      I also believe very strongly in the autonomy of local councils to run their own affairs. If we want to get councillors of high calibre, we must allow them to take control of their own affairs. We must ensure that they are not just puppets of Westminster politicians who do exactly what we tell them. Of course there must be some degree of control. We control the purse strings and that is most effective. Nevertheless, if we want to attract councillors of high calibre, they must be allowed to get on with the job in hand.
      The problem for my right hon. and learned Friend is what to do with the Oxfordshire county council? Should be scold the council? Is he to tell the council that it has autonomy but cannot exercise it? This is an extremely difficult problem. I do not wish to make sport

      1315
      with the dilemma of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is, nevertheless, one that he will have to meet. Unless the position is reversed, Oxfordshire county council is hellbent, if I may use such an unparliamentary expression, on shutting the nursery schools in my area.
      That is a difficult problem. I speak on this Bill in a somewhat confused state. I am not entirely sure what I would do if I were my right hon. and learned Friend. I have not gathered precisely what he intends to do. I hope that at some stage he will be kind enough to tell us. Once the nursery schools are destroyed, they are rather like Humpty Dumpty—once pushed off the wall, it is extremely difficult to put back the inside of the egg and to sellotape the shell.
      Another part of the Bill that gives me a degree of concern is the possibility of bus charges going through the roof. This is a problem for many families in my area—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might find a more suitable occasion for ventilating that grievance.
      Mr. Benyon: Having ventilated, with a degree of enthusiasm, the points I have already made in regard to nursery schools, I wish to draw my brief comments to a speedy conclusion. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will clarify the position that has confused me so much and I look forward to hearing his remarks later today.
      Mr. Beith: There have been three speeches from the Conservative Back Benches today, all, in varying degrees of enthusiasm, favourable towards nursery schools and hoping to see them continued and extended, but all, although I am not sure about the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), apparently supporting a Government new clause to remove from local authorities any statutory obligation to provide nursery schools and nursery classes. There must be a lesson in that. It seems that Conservative Members are not facing up to the reality of the situation although, when the Division lists are published, I may be prepared to exclude the hon. Member for Abingdon, who has not yet resolved his confusion and uncertainty about how to vote. I put it to the hon. Gentleman and others that it is
      1316
      difficult to see any other explanation for this new clause appearing at this late stage than a desire to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman's friends in Oxfordshire off the hook and to give people in other areas a similar opportunity to close down as many nursery schools as they want.
      The new clause could have been tabled at a much earlier stage. It could have been put down for the Committee stage. It could have been included in the Bill when it was introduced if a wider purpose had been intended. It seems obvious that the new clause is to let Oxfordshire off the hook. Oxfordshire has made no secret of its desire to be let off the hook. Its chief education officer, speaking as an officer and not in a party political capacity, said that the Attorney-General's ruling had put the cat among the pigeons and that it was impossible to comply with the law, as it stood, but that, none the less, he would plough ahead regardless with his ideas on the assumption that the law would be changed. The indications were clearly given to the Department of Education and Science and to the Government that Oxfordshire had to be let off the hook. Oxfordshire is not without friends at court and in the highest places of the Government. Other education authorities facing similar pressures would clearly like the indication that they can follow this route and can close nursery schools as an economy measure. I can see no purpose in the new clause other than to provide that opportunity.
      This new clause cannot have been tabled to clarify the law. How many times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you recall a Minister coming to the House and saying that he must have a new clause added to the Bill to clarify the law, and that he had no other purpose and objective than to see that the statute book was clear and without ambiguity? But the statute book is riddled with ambiguities and unclarity. We live with a great deal of it. Some proves useful at times in deploying arguments.
      Whenever Ministers say that they are clarifying the law, they are usually changing it, and trying to put a particular interpretation on it. The purpose of this new clause is to establish the legal position that there should be no statutory obligation to provide nursery education. The Secretary of State nods. We should

      1317
      stop pretending that it is otherwise. It is to remove a statutory obligation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, and which I think we can concede, has not been achieved in practice and, for at least some of the period about which we are talking, has not been as widely acknowledged as at present.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: To avoid a great deal more discussion on this fact, I wish to make clear that I have never attempted to deny that what I am doing changes the law. I have said that the duty that appears to exist under section 8 was extremely confused. Clarification was required. I was making clear that in future there would be no duty. I accept that in making that clear I am changing the law.
      Mr. Beith: Why is clarification required? It seems to be required in order to enable some authorities to dispense with nursery education altogether. It is rather a good kind of unclear law that stops even one Conservative education authority closing all its nursery schools. If that is the effect of unclear laws, I wish we had more of them. I do not believe that the existence of the law on the statute book in its present form will present insoluble difficulties for those authorities genuinely trying to provide as much nursery education as present resources permit and which have programmes to develop nursery education to achieve objectives set out in the Act.
      I cannot believe that there will be a procession of such authorities arraigned in the courts for failing fully to satisfy the expectations created by the Act. The fear is that certain education authorities will be prevented from dispensing entirely with nursery schools, as we have known them. If there were not that fear I do not believe that the clause would have been introduced. The practical effect of the clause is, I suspect, to give a green light to more local authorities to take that damaging course. That is not what ought to be happening.
      The Government should be placing emphasis on retaining existing nursery schools. As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, it is difficult to repair the damage done if nursery schools once close. That is why parents in Buckinghamshire campaigned so vigorously against nursery, school closures in that county. That is
      1318
      why parents in Oxfordshire are now concerned. We should be trying to retain existing nursery schools and using the opportunities presented, given even the present resource difficulties, to expand nursery provision in other ways. We should use the physical space created in primary schools for more nursery classes and use teaching resources that can be freed to make more provision for nursery schools. We should extend provision for under-fives in existing schools and encourage co-operation with the voluntary movement and the playgroup movement.
      I reject the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who seemed to think that the playgroup movement was child minding. It is nothing of the kind. The playgroup movement has a definite educational purpose. I oppose wholly the idea that either nursery education, as statutorily provided, or the playgroup movement, is a child-minding system. The proof that the playgroup movement is nothing of the kind is shown by the extensive participation of the mothers whose children are in the groups in the running of those groups.
      Nursery education is an educational activity. Its purpose is to widen and to extend the opportunities available to children before they go to school. It was set out in those terms by the Prime Minister in a White Paper when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. In my view, the White Paper is recommended reading for anyone concerned with nursery education.
      The spirit of that White Paper is negated, however, by the exercise on which the Government are engaged today. Nursery education needs to be extended not simply to meet the problems of those families who have to find somewhere to send their children. I reject that narrow interpretation of nursery education. A problem that is not often mentioned is nursery education in rural areas. Much of the provision so far has been in towns, where the problems of multiple deprivation have existed.
      6 pm
      A different problem exists in rural areas. Because the number of families on farms and in scattered hamlets is much smaller than in the past, young children

      1319
      do not meet other young children of their own age. Their only company is their parents, and occasionally some older children. Until they go to school they do not have the need or the opportunity to relate to other children of the same age. Their progress in school, particularly if they go to a school which brings together town and country children, is often delayed and retarded because they have not had the same opportunities to talk to other children, to learn to develop and to put forward their own ideas, as those children who have had more opportunity to play with others.
      That is why development in the rural areas is so important. It is not achieved, in most cases, by the provision of purpose-built nursery schools, but by extension through existing facilities, and by providing nursery classes and nursery teaching within village schools. I do not believe that any of those developments will be encouraged or strengthened if today we vote off the statute book the existing obligations upon local authorities. By including in the statute book so expressly permissive a new clause we are giving the opposite indication.
      We might worry less about the clause if the climate were one in which there was a great and easy natural development of nursery education—a climate in which resources were more readily available and in which there was not the most intense competition for the resources available. But the circumstances are different. We are faced with decline, retrenchment and relentless pressure from the Government to make savings in the whole field of education. The same authorities that are struggling in one field will find themselves struggling in another. Authorities that are trying to provide some measure of education in rural areas are those that are being told to cut school transport and to cut school meals. They are being told that if they do not make those savings they must make savings elsewhere. They are under multiple pressure to make savings in education. This cannot be a time at which to tell them that they have no obligations for nursery education.
      The Secretary of State said that he had made one concession. Clause 12 can be used as an appeal procedure when a nursery school is threatened with closure.
      1320
      That will not do very much about the cases where nursery classes are cut, and where the numbers of rising-fives are cut. It might have been more to the point if the Secretary of State had talked in terms of clause 15. He has been prepared to include in the Bill the most extensive and detailed provisions on the regulation and size of schools and classes that have ever been seen in our education legislation.
      Clause 15 provides that if a school is reduced in size by 20 per cent it can be made the subject of a reference to the Secretary of State, on the basis that that is a major change in the size and the character of the school. The Secretary of State has not been prepared to apply that sort of consideration to changes in nursery schools. We might have taken his concession more seriously if he had acted in those terms. Clause 15 is an extremely cumbersome procedure, but at least it shows that the Secretary of State is prepared to act. He is saying that one-fifth of the children in one class of a school cannot be removed but that a whole nursery class can be removed.
      This is the worst possible moment to wipe off the statute book such obligations on the provision of nursery education. I hope that hon. Members, including Conservative Members who express sympathy with nursery education, will join us in ensuring that the clause is not accepted.
      Miss Joan Lestor: We are witnessing the death knell of nursery education. I cannot help but express my contempt for those hon. Gentlemen who talked about the value of nursery education but who tonight will vote to abolish it. There have been many speeches in the House over the years about the value of nursery education and its importance in child development, but when it comes to the crunch we are told that it is the embroidery in education and that it is not a vitally important part of statutory education. Until we join together and say that we are going to make nursery education obligatory—as obligatory as is education from 5–16—we shall always find that when there are cuts in expenditure nursery education will be the first to go. In their amendments the Government are telling local authorities not to be under any misapprehension. They are telling local authorities that they do not have to provide nursery education.

      1321
      I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the value of nursery education. I speak as a former nursery school teacher. It is not simply a question of saying that the important years are those after the age of 5. Education is about curiosity, and a child is at its most curious from the ages of 2, 3 and 4. If those valuable years are missed and the child is not given the proper stimulation, the proper play materials and the incentive to explore and to ask questions in a properly structured environment, those years will be lost for ever. All the arguments about improving educational opportunity will be lost. Those vital years can never be recaptured.
      When the previous Labour Government were in power we were treated to what was called a great debate on education. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) went round the country, day in and day out, week in and week out, informing people that the standard of education was falling, that the State schools were appalling, and that the primary schools and their allegedly progressive methods were causing great damage to school children. At that time I defended education in Britain. I defended the State system. I wish that I had had the opportunity to go to the comprehensive school that my son attends. To slur Labour Members who attended educational establishments chosen by their parents is ridiculous. If some Labour Members and, indeed, some Conservative Members had had the opportunity of comprehensive education, and if some had attended nursery schools, we might be hearing speeches the like of which we have never heard before.
      The prophecy about State education is beginning to come true. State education is being undermined, and it is being abolished. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) made a sympathetic speech about nursery education. He said that we should campaign and convince people. People are convinced. Many people outside the House of Commons today were lobbying hon. Members about nursery education. People have lobbied since 1968. At that time they came to the House of Commons in their thousands to protest that they wanted more nursery education.
      1322
      If a survey were to be conducted and if people were to be asked if they would prefer an assisted places scheme to nursery education, I know what the answer would be. Working-class and middle-class mothers would all say the same. Nursery education does not simply involve child minding; it should be the right of every child. Every child should have the right to facilities as a first step towards a wider education environment.
      Today the death knell of nursery education has sounded. We do not wish to cloud the issue. Local authorities are being told that they do not have to provide nursery education. Never before when there have been expenditure cuts have we taken it upon ourselves to instruct or give permission to local authorities to cut nursery education. The irony of the situation is that under the Labour Administration, 54 per cent. of 4-year-olds gained access to nursery schools, nursery classes or early entrance into primary schools. Time and again, when allocations were made available, the Tory authorities refused those allocations.
      Until facilities for the under-fives, in the broadest possible way—facilities for mothers who have to work and for mothers who do not have to work—are based on education, and until that is made a statutory obligation, we shall always be pushed back into the position in which the first to fall under the cuts will be those children who most need the provision—the under-fives.
      Mr. John MacKay: Without being in any way critical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the order in which you call upon hon. Members to speak, I had hoped that I might speak after the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). During the course of his speech—which we have heard many times in Committee—he made his customary attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve)—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for health matters. He also made his usual attack on and asked his usual question about the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
      Mr. Canavan: Where is he?
      Mr. MacKay: I would have preferred to follow immediately after the hon.

      1323
      Member for West Stirlingshire in order to demonstrate to some of my hon. Friends that the Scottish education system is not one from which the teaching of manners is totally absent. I hope that my few remarks will contrast with the remarks, sometimes—indeed, often—intemperate, which they hear on the Floor of the House and also in Committee. I should also like to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor).
      The problem with which we are faced in Scotland and in England in regard to the present legislation is in knowing whether a local education authority in England, or an education authority in Scotland, is obliged to provide nursery education. As I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's argument, nobody thought that the authorities were under that obligation. A look at the percentage of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in Scotland and in England who were in nursery education would suggest that the local authorities did not think that they were obliged to provide nursery education for all the children who wanted it.
      I have in mind some of the local education authorities in England. I am sure that some Labour Members will tell me that these are Conservative-controlled local education authorities, but that does not matter. They obey the law, and if the law said that they had to provide the facilities they would have done so. Some figures are as low as 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. Over the whole of England, the figure for nursery schools is 18 per cent. It is the same in Scotland. It is therefore quite clear from the figures that for many years local education authorities have not considered that they had an obligation to provide nursery education on a grand scale. Tonight we are making regular the position in which these local authorities thought that they were.
      In the debate, Opposition Members are suggesting that nursery education ought to be expanded and ought to be provided for all children. I should have thought that that was not obeying the spirit of the legislation, and would certainly not be in keeping with the priorities that we ought to put on the spending of money on education at this time.
      1324
      The debate is, therefore, partly about the legislation—some Opposition Members have mentioned it—but it is also partly about whether we should be providing education—as suggested by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough—virtually for all children above the age of 2 years, in her case, and the age of 3 years in the case of other hon. Members.
      6.15 pm
      The provision of facilities for the under-fives in this country at the moment is met principally by the play group organisation and the Pre-School Playgroups Association. In my own constituency, for example, the figures for this type of provision are much better than those for nursery education. In one part of my constituency, 59 per cent. of all children between 3 and 5 years of age attend playgroups. In another area, the figure goes up to 65 per cent. In one island—such areas are very difficult, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out—45 per cent. of the children between 3 and 5 years of age attend playgroups.
      I am aware that some people do not greatly approve of playgroups because they are not manned by professionals and because funny people called parents, who have no skills in these matters, run playgroups. The fact that they are not under the control of the State is also regarded unfavourably.
      I should like to read a short quotation from a book called "Who Cares?", by Penelope Leach, in which she examines the relationship between an expanding nursery school's education system and a pre-school playgroup system based on mothers and their friends. This is an area where the provision of facilities for the under-fives could be expanded without spending any more money, because at the moment, at 1976 prices, it costs £1,130 annually in running expenses to provide a nursery school place. A great many playgroup places could be provided for that kind of money. It is not, of course, nursery school education, but the point that I am making, and made in Committee, is that I do not consider, unlike some of my hon. Friends, that nursery schools are of themselves good things—the goodies that ought to be dished out to children.
      Parents—and mothers in particular—have a much more important role to play

      1325
      than is accepted by those who put forward the general thesis that children should go to nursery school at 4, 3 or 2 years of age.
      I want to return to the question of the playgroup movement because it is important, if we are talking about provision for the under-fives, that we should not ignore their very important role. This is what Penelope Leach says:
      "Playgroups need more State money but not more State interference and getting the one without the other will be difficult. The 'by parents, for parents and the children' philosophy, which keeps them as generators rather than replacers of parental resources, is already threatened by ideas about 'integrating them into other services for children under five'. The idea of running this kind of playgroup 'under the supervision of' an attached day nursery or child health clinic, is anathema. To be an extension of parental resources, playgroups have to belong, to be run by and be the responsibility of, the parents of the children who use them. The anxiety of the State to ensure that children are kept safe and are 'properly' cared for is commendable and their fear of liability in case of accident is understandable. Nevertheless, if playgroups are to function as parent-resources, the State will have to trust them"—
      —an amazing doctrine—
      "to know best. If they do not, playgroups will become more and more like nursery schools; places which parents accept as being of benefit to their children but from which they, personally, tend to flee."
      That quotation demonstrates—
      Miss Joan Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of nursery schools in this country have an active mother participation process?
      Mr. MacKay: I cannot see how the point that the hon. Lady has just made marries with the points made by most of her hon. Friends about working mothers. If the mothers are working they cannot be participating. As I understand a lot of the quotations that I have read about nursery education, it is the influence of the professionals that is important—that the professional will man it and not the parents. The playgroups to which my children went, and which exist in my constituency, are manned in the main by the mothers of the children. It is the mothers who look after them.
      Mr. Allen McKay: That is utter rubbish. It is possible to go into any junior school and pick three types of
      1326
      children. There are those who did not go to a playgroup or nursery school, those who went to a playgroup, and those who went to a nursery school. There is a direct division between all three categories, and it is the nursery school that comes out top every time.
      Mr. John MacKay: With respect, I shall come back to that later in my speech, when I hope to investigate the impact of the nursery school. If the hon. Gentleman means what he says, he ought to be saying that we should reduce the school starting age and place a duty on the parents to send their children to nursery school, otherwise the children will be missing something very serious in their education. Once the argument is accepted for the 4-year-old child it can be further argued for the 3-year-old.
      In that way, we can go on until the parents have little or no responsibility for their children. The children will go to school from the age of 3 and they will be there from 9 am until 3.30 pm. Many children feel that they are at school long enough in their lives. It would be quite wrong to send children to school at the age of 3 when they ought to be enjoying their play and loving care at home. It would be greatly to the detriment of the child, of the mother, and of the family, as the basic unit of our society.
      I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), with which I did not agree. He mentioned the Think Tank—the Central Policy Review Staff—and I wish to quote some of its remarks in advancing the theory of nursery education. They help to reinforce my argument that nursery education is a diminution of the role of the mother and the family.
      The Think Tank said:
      "Most parents with young children need advice and help in caring for them and bringing them up…Governmental agencies have an increasing role to play in providing the essential health and advisory services to help young parents…The assumption that in normal circumstances…the family can cope is now no longer a sufficient answer."
      If that is what it thinks, I am not impressed. It is suggesting that the family is not nearly such an important thing in our society as I believe it should be, and as I am sure that most right thinking Members believe it should be.

      1327
      I turn to two or three of the arguments for nursery school education. I accept that there is a role for nursery education for certain children. I deal first with the working mums. Reports by the CBI and the trade unions are naturally slanted towards the theory that if a mum does not wish to work she is somehow an inadequate person, and that we should organise our facilities so that she can go out to work.
      I tabled a question to the Department of Employment on 29 October 1979, and was told that in Britain in 1978 there were about 2¾ million mothers with children under 5. About 750,000 of those were in paid employment—under 30 per cent.—of whom fewer than 200,000 were in full-time employment—that is, working 30 hours or more per week. The remaining 600,000 worked part-time—that is, less than 30 hours per week. Unfortunately, the Department could not give me a greater breakdown of the 30 hours. Even if we consider part-time and full-time work, fewer than one-third of the under-fives have mothers who go out to work.
      If nursery education is expanded beyond the needs of even a portion of that one-third—because many mothers in part-time work may not require all-day facilities—it will bring in a number of mums who do not go out to work, who do not wish to go out to work, but who begin to feel that they have to send their children to nursery school because, taking the argument of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), somehow the children emerge from nursery school better than they emerge from the home. I cannot accept that argument.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that supposedly prides itself on the principle of freedom of choice. Should it not be left to the parents to choose whether to send their children to nursery school or a nursery class? Should that choice not be made available to them by the local education authority? The new clause would deprive them further of that choice.
      Mr. MacKay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our general principle in education is that there should be freedom of choice. The new clause gives local authorities the power to provide nursery
      1328
      education, but does not make it a duty. Those parents who want nursery education can have it. It is up to the local authorities. Those authorities in areas of greater need, perhaps deprivation, would provide more facilities. That is the role of the local councillor. The lack of confidence that is shown in him by many hon. Members is amazing. They do not think that he could make a reasonable decision about his area. He is in the best position to make a reasonable decision.
      I return to the question of disadvantaged children. I have been fair about the report. I wish to refer the House to some recent remarks by Dr. Barbara Tizard. In no way does Dr. Tizard not believe in nursery education. A recent newspaper article states:
      "Dr. Tizard said she was convinced that nursery schools were needed but that no good could come from propagating the wrong beliefs about their role."
      The article quotes Dr. Tizard as saying
      "Nursery education as it is practiced in this country today is held out as essential for the intellectual development of children. I cannot support that view."
      The article goes on to say:
      "Dr. Tizard said that nursery schools were needed and must not be cut back. But teachers and psychologists were wrong if they believed that:
      the home was a less effective learning environment than nursery school;
      that the sort of language used in working-class homes is inadequate and has a marked effect on a child's later performance;
      that it was more important to provide children with a rich choice of activities than to get them used to completing a task; and that children got more chance to play with adults at nursery schools than at home."
      Dr. Tizard believes that the basic assumption that nursery education benefits the educational position of the child is not well founded, and that the evidence does not confirm it. However, to be fair, she believes that nursery education has an important role to play and should be expanded.
      Mr. Chris Patten: I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that nursery education, but not the pre-school play group, undermines family life. The best demolition of that argument was in Lord Butler's speech on the Second Reading of the 1944 Act. If anything undermines

      1329
      family life it is that—unlike the French—we do not have a benefit system that encourages mothers to stay at home.
      Mr. MacKay: I am sorry that my speech is flowing rather fast. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath would be able to watch the water running out. He is obviously back at the position of the 750,000 mothers, out of 2¾ million mothers, who feel that they have to go out to work. He makes a valid point—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be delighted to hear him make it—when he suggests that it would be in the best interests of the family, the mums and the children if we considered ways financially to help mothers to stay at home so that they did not feel obliged to go out to work.
      Mr. Canavan: What about child benefits?
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me from his usual sedentary position. The trouble with child benefits is that they do not go to the families who need them most, but go also to other families who do not need them in order that the mother can stay at home and look after the children.
      If we continue to advocate more and more nursery education, we will be entering a debate—without actually saying it—about lowering the age at which children start school. That may be a worthwhile debate, but we should have it as the subject of another debate rather than under the guise of expanding or contracting nursery education.
      I realise that I have struck a discordant note in the agreement between both sides of the House. I am sure that Opposition Members will not be surprised when they do not find me in the Lobby with them.
      The worst that could happen to our society is for the House and educationists to attempt to put across the idea to families and mothers that they are doing their children a favour if they send them to nursery school as early as possible. That would be the wrong thing to do. However, that is what might happen, because many contributions from Opposition Members have suggested just that.
      Miss Joan Lestor: Name one.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. MacKay: The intervention by the hon. Member for Penistone. Had the hon. Member for Eton and Slough listened to him she would realise that of all the groups who enter primary 1, nursery children are in the best possible position. If that is the case, let us have a debate about starting school at the age of 4, 3½ or 3. Indeed, it could even be suggested that the children should be taken away once the mother has weaned them so that the professionals could look after them. But that sounds like an advertisement for the Army.
      Let us not continue to advocate more and more nursery education and nursery schools if it is to the detriment of the playgroup movement—which is a commendable organisation—based as it is on the role of the family and the mother in relation to the critical role of the under-fives. I am happy to back my right hon. and learned Friend in his amendments on nursery education, although I must admit that my happiness with regard to other parts of the Bill is not quite so unqualified.
      Mr. John Maxton: I am aware of the time, and in a debate that has been guillotined we are still due to discuss other parts of the Bill before the closure on this group of amendments. Therefore, I wish to keep my remarks brief.
      Those of us who come from Scotland have a problem. This is the only part of the debate that refers directly to Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Members wish to contribute to it. It is perhaps to the Government's shame that in a Bill which in the main covers England and Wales they have included a large section covering Scotland, instead of introducing separate legislation which Scottish Members could debate fully.
      There is no dubiety at all in Scotland about whether there is a duty to provide nursery education. There may be some dubiety in England and Wales because of the provisions of the 1944 Act, but, as I read the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, there is no such doubt in Scotland. The fact is that what is happening in Scotland is not a clearing up of the law, but is a straight repeal of the existing duty upon local authorities to provide nursery education.

      1331
      I have some reservations about the wording of new clause 2, because it refers to:
      "The duties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962".
      The House should know quite clearly what that Act says. It says:
      "It shall be the duty"—
      I emphasise the word "duty"—
      "of every educational authority to secure that adequate and sufficient provision is made throughout their area of all form of primary secondary and further education."
      Section 2 defines exactly what is meant by primary education. It states:
      "In this Act 'primary education" means progressive elementary education in such subjects as may be prescribed in that behalf in regulations made under subsection (2) of the last foregoing section, regard being had to the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils concerned, and includes—
      (a) training by appropriate methods in schools and classes (hereinafter referred to as 'nursery schools' and 'nursery classes') for pupils between the age of two years and such later age as may be permitted by the said regulations".
      However, section 2(3) states:
      "The provision of primary education in nursery schools and nursery classes shall be deemed to be adequate if such provision is made at centres where sufficient children whose parents desire such education for them can be enrolled to form a school or class of a reasonable size".
      That is clear cut, and it is absolute in law. Under the 1962 Act local authorities have a duty—not a responsibility—to provide nursery education. I am sure that many Scottish Members feel that today's debate is about an education Bill covering England and Wales, and perhaps they are not aware that this new clause, which has been inserted at this late stage, will influence nursery education in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
      That has occurred at a time when, as my hon. Friend, the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) made clear, the demographic trends are towards a decline in the number of children below the age of 5, and now below the age of 10. As a result, we shall have primary schools with a small number of pupils, and classrooms and teachers will be available. This is not the time to take away the duty of education authorities to provide nursery education. It is the time to expand it, because facilities exist in
      1332
      primary schools that can be used to set up nursery classes.
      Now is the time to do that. If it is done now, it can be done reasonably cheaply. I never like having education on the cheap, but on this occasion we could provide nursery education for all who desire it. I emphasise that point to the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). The local authority in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Argyll and myself is Labour-controlled and will ensure that nursery education continues, but others will not. This is the ideal time to provide such education. There should be a programme of expansion, not a cut-back, as the new clause implies.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to intervene briefly and make some references to the differences with regard to Scottish legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend will shortly wind up the debate, but in his opening speech he referred to the Bill as it applies to Scotland. In other words, the intention is to restate the law on the provision of nursery education.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) quoted from section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, which says that an education authority in Scotland has a duty:
      "to secure that adequate and sufficient provision is made throughout their area"
      of school education. School education, as defined in the Act, includes activities in nursery schools and classes of a kind that are suitable for pupils who are under school age. Therefore, there is no doubt that education authorities in Scotland have a duty in relation to the provision of school education and nursery schools and classes. But, thereafter, the Act does not elaborate on the extent of the duty. To that extent, the hon. Gentleman quoted from the 1962 Act before it was amended by the 1969 Act.
      In practice, therefore, as in England and Wales, education authorities vary as to the level of provision that they have made for nursery education, perhaps because they have been under the impression that they have a discretion in the matter and not a defined duty. In addition, circumstances vary from one area

      1333
      to another. There is, therefore, the same need as there is south of the border to bring the law into line with what it has apparently been assumed to be.
      Mr. Kinnock: Was not the hon. Gentleman present earlier when his right hon. and learned Friend said that the need was for clarification, because in England and Wales there was a responsibility rather than a duty? The Under-Secretary is now saying that it is not so much a responsibility as a duty, although it is not an effective duty because the degree of provision is not laid down. Is not the natural progression from that argument to specify the duty and the degree of duty rather than to remove the duty altogether?
      Mr. Fletcher: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a duty. The extent to which that duty should be further clarified is one of the purposes of the new clause. As I have just said, the provision varies. Most people assume that local authorities in Scotland have a power or discretion in this matter rather than a duty. There has been some misunderstanding on that matter. We make the clear point in the amendment that there is a power and not a duty. The discretion that people thought they had in this respect is now being clarified in the legislation. I am glad that the hon. Gentlemen agree. The difference between the new clause that affects England and Wales and the new clause that we propose arises largely from the differences in the wording of the existing Scots legislation and that for England and Wales.
      I make three brief points. I repeat the assurance that was given by my right hon. and learned Friend that there has been no change of mind on the Government's part about the importance of nursery education.
      It has been interesting to listen to some of the comments made. For example, the hon Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) referred to the number of children in nursery education. The number of children in Scotland receiving nursery education increased substantially from about 14,000 in September 1972 to almost 32,000 in September 1979. It is significant, in the light of those remarks, that the number of children in playgroups in Scotland is now about 45,000, so that the voluntary side of this important activity
      1334
      has been capable of expanding at an even faster rate in this period than the schools side.
      We in Scotland decided not to introduce charges for nursery education. There is no need for us to introduce an amendment to bring the closure of nursery schools within the Secretary of State's control. Under section 22 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, Scottish education authorities already require the Secretary of State's approval before they can discontinue any educational establishment, or part of an educational establishment, under their management. That provision includes nursery schools and classes.
      Those were the distinct Scottish points in the debate. I ask the House to agree to new clause 2.
      Mr. Flannery: It is sad that the Conservative Party does not admit that the aim of the new clause is, first, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, to get Oxfordshire off the hook, and, secondly, to enable any council that wants to do so to abandon completely nursery education—in other words, to save money by hurting the youngest members of our community. Government supporters know that as well as the Opposition do. We tried to point that out. However, when so much hypocrisy emanates from Government supporters, it must be shown clearly to the press and those listening exactly what the Government are up to.
      Up to the point when it became necessary to say which way they were voting, one would have thought that Government supporters were talking about the expansion of nursery education. They all realise how profoundly the people in this country believe in nursery education. They pay lip-service to that principle. They speak as though they want to expand such education. They realise how important it is, and then they go on to say that they will vote for the new clause. Every one of them—they are not fools—knows that this new clause is destined to strike a deadly blow at the whole of nursery education. Every teacher here—even Tory teachers—knows that that will happen and that the way is now being paved for it to happen.

      1335
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said that this was the beginning of immobilising nursery education in this country. It will go on from there as long as we have such a reactionary Government. It was pointed out that if the sum of £50 million or £60 million that is to be filched from our people, and the funds to be provided for the so-called assisted places scheme were given to the expansion of nursery education, there would be some sense in it.
      6.45 pm
      The reality is that any teacher knows that one wants a one-to-one relationship when teaching. We need small classes in the nursery schools. The child has left the most important person in his life—his mother. He has to get into a long queue—if indeed any nursery education is available. Every teacher knows that small classes benefit the children. Later on in the pupils' education the teachers can tell the difference between those who received nursery education and those who did not.
      There were nearly 100 hours of debate on the Bill in Committee. This clause was never mentioned. After the Committee stage the Government's advisers pointed out to them that they could make a killing on saving money out of the little children. The Tories then introduced a further cut in education by introducing the new clause—against which the Opposition will vote later.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he will introduce clarity. To whom does he think he is talking when he says that? He is introducing a major cut in education under the guise of clarity. The unclear law that he intends to clarify is far better than the so-called clear law that he is imposing on us. If he says that he is rectifying the law, that is up to him. However, he will move it in the opposite direction, not by giving us clarity, but by preventing us from providing nursery education even when we want to do so.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me—I know that he will tell me truthfully—what his view was of the present law until I put down the amendment? Did he think that there was a duty or a discretion?
      Mr. Flannery: I was on the point of reading the exact part of the 1944 Act and then giving it my interpretation. It says:
      "(2) In fulfilling their duties under this section, a local education authority shall, in particular, have regard—
      (b) to the need for securing that provision is made for pupils who have not attained the age of five years by the provision of nursery schools or, where the authority consider the provision of such schools to be inexpedient, by the provision of nursery classses in other schools;".
      When it says "have regard to" it does not mean "disregard". "Having regard to" means providing the classes. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that "having regard to" is a mental exercise—that one reads the clause, thinks about it, and does nothing—that is up to him. To me "having regard to" means having nursery education. That is what most authorities have done—even the Tory authorities that had neglected to take up their allocations in the past few years. Therefore, a statutory duty has been violated by successive Governments.
      Many hon. Members would support the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he were to clarify that law by making it clear that the provision of nursery education is a duty, as it is in Scotland.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be clear about this? Is he now saying that it has always been his view that there was a duty rather than merely a power to provide education for the under-fives? If so, before he answers will he remember that he led a deputation to see me about this matter on one occasion?
      Mr. Flannery: That has always been my opinion, although it has not always been the opinion of every member of the Opposition. I was chairman of the national advisory committee on primary schools of the National Union of Teachers. All through that time I interpreted that clause in the way that I have just put it. However, it is not merely my opinion. I refer to The Times Educational Supplement editorial of the past week. The Minister has read it. In big black print it is called:
      "A bad Bill which will positively harm education."

      1337
      Under the heading "Nursery Education" it talks about "this miserable Bill" and further on it refers to
      "This ill-considered ragbag of a Bill."
      Those are not my words, but those of The Times Educational Supplement.
      Winston Churchill once described The Times as the three penny edition of the Daily Worker. I am sure that many Government supporters will come to regard that august journal, The Times Educational Supplement, in a similar light. The editorial takes the Government to task for cheating on education and harming the youngest of our children.
      It has been said that 20 per cent. of children under 5 who are not in nursery classes are in junior schools. Those are the children who, possibly for one term before going to the junior school, go into an infant class. Children who have had that extra term are nearly always better at reading than are the children who come in a term later.
      According to the front page of The Times Educational Supplement, the provision of nursery education is now discretionary rather than a legal duty, the law is to be changed, and the statutory duty will go. It interprets the provision in the 1944 Act as a statutory duty, just as I do.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked before? I have a vivid recollection of that meeting. Is he saying that before I put down the amendment he believed that there was a statutory duty to provide education for the under-fives, or did he believe that part of the reason why there was not adequate provision was that the powers of the local authority in this respect were completely discretionary?
      Mr. Flannery: I believed that. The deputation that I led was of the ASTMS, not the NUT, and it was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would charge for nursing education. He assured me that he would not. I am not sure whether he knows that he will not. He thinks that he will not, but I think that the time will come when he will charge.
      The clause will inflict severe damage on the educational chances of that most vulnerable section of the community, small children under 5 years of age. It strikes
      1338
      a terrible blow against the foundation of education.
      It has been said that about 19 per cent. of youngsters go to nursery school. I think that the figure is about 18 per cent., but that percentage is under attack. Tory Members say that they are in favour of the expansion of nursery education. Do they think that there will be an expansion in Oxfordshire? That authority has said flatly that it will kill nursery education. Do Tory members, who weep crocodile tears about nursery education and say they want expansion, realise that when the clause goes through and Oxfordshire gets away with it all Tory authorities throughout the country will wade in and save cash on nursery education?
      The Secretary of State is carrying out orders from on high given by a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, who seeks by devices of all kinds to cut down on nursery education and education in general to save money. Let us be quite clear. The aim of the clause is to save money at the expense of the youngest members of our community by curtailing nursery education.
      Mrs Renée Short: I am concerned about the ill-informed, misleading and patronising speech made by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). He said that he had never been inside a nursery school; he did not know the difference between a play group and a nursery school and he was attempting to divide the House on an issue that is not before us.
      I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not seized the opportunity to make nursery education part of the statutory system. Had he had the courage to do so he would have won the applause of the Opposition. It is part of the Labour Party's policy to provide nursery education for all children between the ages of 3 and 5 whose parents wish it.
      We have heard patronising talk about mums farming their children out to nursery schools and dodging their obligations. What do Tory Members think about parents who farm out their children to boarding schools or prep schools and so dodge their obligations?
      My constituency has been fortunate in having a Labour-controlled authority for many years which has provided a number of nursery schools and nursery classes.

      1339
      The authority has converted old primary schools into marvellous new nursery schools and a considerable proportion of young children are able to enjoy nursery education. I defy those who say that there is no difference between children who have been to nursery school and those who have not. All teachers say that children who have been to nursery school are more poised, better developed, more articulate and more self-confident than children who have not had that opportunity.
      There are two organisations which are largely responsible for building up a massive head of steam behind the demand for nursery education. They are the Campaign for Nursery Education and the former Nursery Schools Association which is now the British Association for Early Childhood Education. That body has not developed since before the time of the previous Labour Government. It is about 60 years old and it is very disappointed in the lack of progress towards nursery education by Governments of both parties during its lifetime.
      The occasion when the former Secretary of State for Education and Science—the present Prime Minister—brought forward her White Paper on education in 1972 was a red letter day for nursery education. We thought we had arrived. We know better now. It would be salutary for the hon. Member for Argyll to read his leader's White Paper. It sets out the aims and objectives of nursery education and provided the starting point for many of us who were working in education although not in the House.
      Another women Minister responsible for education, Florence Horsbrugh, produced a notorious circular, 8/60, which condemned the provision of nursery education to remain at the low level it was in 1957. For years teachers and enthusiasts for nursery education campaigned to have that circular removed. The Prime Minister removed it in her White Paper of 1972. We thought that was a milestone and that we would surge ahead with an expansion of nursery education. The Secretary of State of the day set out the advantages for the development of practical and social skills that stem from nursery education. Children in the deprived urban and rural areas were in-
      1340
      cluded because their needs were equally great.
      7 pm
      Another advantage of nursery education is, as the White Paper said, the indentification of children with special difficulties, such as those who are mentally handicapped or who have psychological or medical problems who could benefit from being with a group of ordinary children. Paragraph 28 of the White Paper said:
      "All children can gain from nursery education."
      That should be the Secretary of State's guiding light, but he has extinguished that light. The White Paper went on:
      "but it is particularly valuable for children whose home and life are restricted, for whatever reason."
      All these important concepts and precepts concerning nursery education have clearly been thrown overboard by this Government. It is a tragedy that it is a Government led by a former Secretary of State for Education, now the Prime Minister, who have also thrown over the great ideals and inspiration that lay behind the presentation of that valuable White Paper.
      I remind the House that the Plowden report estimated that demand for nursery places by the year 1981, which is next year, would rise to 700,000 full-time equivalent places. We are far from reaching that kind of provision. With the new clause we shall clearly proceed much more slowly. I suggest that he has put the clock back to what it was before 1972.
      Members of the Oxfordshire Campaign for Nursery Education group who came to the House to lobby today are rightly worried about what will happen. What will the Minister say when a local education authority asks for permission to close a nursery school and tells him that it is because he—he said this at the beginning of his speech—is restricting its resources to the level of 1979–80? It will not have the resources to maintain its nursery schools at their present level and certainly will be unable to expand them. Inflation and the rising cost of materials will starve them of the resources required to enable them to continue. Will the Secretary of State say "All right: I will find more money so that you can keep your nursery schools running"; or will he say "You can close them down"? The

      1341
      prospect for nursery education is grim and I hope that the whole House will vote against the new clause.
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I find it ironic that just as the wonderful discovery has apparently been made that all along the 1944 Act laid an obligation on local authorities to provide nursery education, the Secretary of State's contribution is to seek to withdraw it. Having gathered to himself a fig-leaf of protection by saying that he will have to give permission for a nursery school to be closed, what will the Secretary of State do to encourage the increase of nursery education and save the position in some areas? For example, education for the rising fives is severely threatened as many LEAs are considering proposals not to admit them so that they can save money. The LEAs concerned include Avon, Surrey, Warwickshire, Gateshead and Newcastle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's fig-leaf will not protect him. What will the Secretary of State be able to say to these LEAs as they pursue these plans during the coming financial year?
      The Secretary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said, in a written answer on 22 October 1979, that this year the number of nursery places would rise from 210,000 to 220,000 and in the following year they would rise to 226,000. How will the Secretary of State encourage the spread and increase of nursery education, having removed the alleged statutory duty from the 1944 Act? What will he do about recalcitrant LEAs, many of which have made only minimal provision for nursery education for a long time? Let me just tell the House which they are. The list includes Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Havering, Redbridge, Richmond-upon-Thames, Devon, Dorset, East Sussex, Essex, Hampshire, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lincolnshire, Somerset, Suffolk, and Gloucestershire with none at all. I am reading out only a list of the worst offenders because most of these authorities provide nursery education for less than 10 per cent. of the population of three and four year olds. That estimate was given in January 1979.
      What will the Secretary of State do with local authorities like those I have listed? How will he encourage them to increase nursery education when he has
      1342
      made clear his real attitude towards nursery education by putting forward the new clause? The Secretary of State's right hon. Friends in the Treasury are busy taking the cash away and he is busy taking away any encouragement or obligation there might have been under the 1944 Act. What will the Secretary of State do about offending LEAs which are worse than those I have mentioned and which include counties such as Avon which, during five years of Labour government had access to part of £50 million which the Labour Government made available for nursery school building programmes? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do about those LEAs that turned up their noses at that provision not just in one year but during the whole five years?
      Will the Secretary of State match the provision made by the Labour Government during their period in office? I do not think that the amount provided was enough, but in the four years between 1974 and 1978 the Labour Government made £51 million available in loan sanctions under the nursery education building programme. During 1978–79 the amount was almost £4·5 million, and we actually planned to make over £14 million available for the years 1979–80. So if we had won the election at least the smallest children in our community would have had a much better deal.
      I admit that the Labour Government did not do all that those of us within the Parliamentary Labour Party wanted by way of providing places for nursery education, but at least the number of places rose from approximately 121,000 at the beginning of our period of office to 198,000 by the time we left office. It was an increase. More places were made available. I agree that not enough places were made available and that not enough cash was set aside for the nursery school building programme. However, the offenders I have listed are, in almost every case, Tory-controlled authorities. They must be waiting with glee for the new clause to be passed because they know they will be able to sweep away any notion of an obligation that they may have had to provide this type of education.
      Like all the Tory spending cuts, this is not even sensible. One thing that I

      1343
      have noticed about all the cuts in expenditure planned for the coming year and the following years is that they are shortsighted and stupid. They appear to cut costs and make savings but other services will have to pick up the costs elsewhere either immediately or at a later date.
      Let us consider what Halsey has said recently about nursery school education:
      "a pre-school programme, properly devised, can be a most economical investment for a government wishing to save money on schools."
      It is a good investment for a Government who wish to improve education standards at the same time. If we wish to save money on education, we must lay a firm foundation in nursery education. It is cost-effective in the long run. However, when the Tories come to saving money they think only in the short term. They cannot see beyond the end of next week or beyond this year's balance sheet.
      Why would the Government be laying such a firm foundation with good nursery education? I refer to a study that has recently been undertaken on the Headstart programme in the United States. Over recent years the programme has been much criticised. Scorn has been poured on it. It has been said that the programme achieved nothing. However, a proper long-term assessment of the programme has been carried out.
      The study led to four results. First, it indicated that in narrow education terms—there are other benefits from nursery education—those who took part in the programme were much less likely to be assigned later to special or remedial classes.
      Secondly, the study revealed that those who had taken part in the programme were much less inclined to drop out from school at a later date or, in the American system, have to repeat a year's work because of poor performance.
      Thirdly, the study indicated that the achievement in mathematics at the age of 10 was significantly improved through nursery education—namely through the Headstart programme.
      Fourthly, children from poorer families who took part in the programme scored higher than those with whom they were compared.
      1344
      All those benefits were achieved by a properly constructed programme of education. That answers the nonsense uttered by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay). The pre-school playgroup is valuable, but it cannot replace a properly structured programme of education. It cannot provide education benefits in the years to come. It may provide some of the social benefits of a nursery school, but it cannot provide the education benefits, especially for poorer children.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to Dr. Barbara Tizard's research. In my view he entirely misrepresented her. Her conclusions stemmed from a programme which she carried out and which was financed by the Department of Education and Science. The project was focused on encouraging parental involvement in nursery schools. There was another project on adult-child language at school and at home. Dr. Tizard concluded that nursery schools should not impose alien middle class cultures on working class children and should not seek to restrict the type of language that the children use at home while at school. The hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresented Dr. Tizard's work. She was considering the sort of education that should be received in nursery schools. She emphasised the importance of parental involvement.
      The hon. Member for Argyll referred to the number of children who have working mothers. He ignored two features. First, he ignored the fact that about 90 per cent. of mothers—that is the percentage according to most surveys—would prefer their children to attend nursery schools at the age of 3 years or 4 years. There are some who would prefer their children to attend such schools at a younger age. A high percentage of mothers wish their children to obtain nursery education. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the wish of many mothers who are at present at home with young children to go to work. Many would do so if proper nursery education and nursery care facilities were made available for them.
      7.15 pm
      My right hon. and hon. Friends are not suggesting that parents should be coerced to send their children to school at 3 years or 4 years. My view is that most children

      1345
      are ready to move outside the home for at least part of the day at that age. In that way, children especially those from poorer families, can derive enormous education benefits. It is vital that nursery education be made available.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman is running away from any hint that there may be a statutory obligation. He offers no explanation of how his party proposes to fulfil its wish to provide nursery education so that each child may progress as far as his or her abilities allow. Instead he allows his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to cut the ground from under his feet as they busily slash his budget for the coming financial year. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members will oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I believe that education should start at the age of 3 years and that it should never stop. I have held that belief for many years. I advanced that argument to Sir Alec Clegg about 22 years ago. Sir Alec accused me—the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay) has made a similar accusation—of taking children out of mothers' arms. I spoke to Sir Alec not long ago. I reminded him of our encounter 22 years ago and it appears that he has altered his attitude. Many others have altered their views on nursery education. That is why I am disappointed by the Secretary of State's statement. I have always considered the statutory obligation to start at the age of 5 years. Had I known what the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated, I am sure that there would have been more nursery classes within the area represented by my local authority. The argument has always been presented to me that the statutory obligation began at 5 years.
      Those in the area that I represent have seen the benefits of nursery education. It is in the old West Riding area, an area that devoted most of its resources to secondary education. The only benefit that we derived from local government reorganisation was the opportunity to pour resources into nursery education. That gave me the opportunity to witness something that I have wanted for most of my life, namely, education from 3 years to 18-plus in my locality.
      Nursery education has presented opportunities to many children. I do
      1346
      not decry or seek to undermine playgroups, which perform a valuable role. I applaud the work that they undertake. However, I sometimes think that they exist merely to fill the vacuum that is created by not having nursery education. The development of a child is apparent when he or she attends nursery school. That is not merely my view; it is the view of many parents. I have had the opportunity to witness that development.
      A study was undertaken at Sheffield university, which indicated that a person who had attended a nursery school had an opportunity that was more or less equal to that enjoyed by someone who went to a public school. The study revealed that that was the result when both persons started their working lives. The study took into account all the facets of attending a nursery school and a public school—the education of mind and body.
      I applaud the Secretary of State's statement on special provision in existing schools. There are education authorities that have space within their junior schools that could be used to offer the special provision to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. In many instances authorities have refused to make that provision, and facilities for nursery education have not been made available. I do not want secondhand nursery education, but there is the opportunity for progressive authorities to make provision.
      I have discussed these matters with the education authority in my constituency. Those representing the authority said that toilet facilities were too high above the ground in their schools for children who would receive nursery education. I started school at about 2¾ years, coming up 3 years. That is why I have been a believer in children starting school at the age of 3. If the toilets were not low enough the children stood on two bricks. That did not detract from the education facilities.
      I would like the Secretary of State to tell me what is his definition of a class. He tells us that decisions on nursery school closures are for him. Will he say what is a nursery school and what is a nursery class? Is a nursery class something that exists in a nursery school, or must it be a separate entity? It is important that we should define our terms.

      1347
      in order to prevent future argument. I am grateful for the Secretary of State's assurance that no charges will be made. This Government are already charging sufficient for various services.
      I would prefer the legislation to have been left alone because that would have forced those authorities that are not committed to nursery education at least to take cognisance of it. My other fear is that under the Government's commitment to cut public spending, nursery education will suffer most severely. By far the largest part of any local authority budget is earmarked for education. I know what will happen when the excuse and opportunity to pull out is given to some local authorities. Nursery education will be one of the first sectors to suffer under the pressure for expenditure cuts. If we believe in nursery education it would be far better to proceed with existing legislation. That would be more beneficial for our education system.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: For four and a half hours we have debated one of the most important subjects to come before the House for a considerable time. I want to place two facts on record. First, the Opposition have already registered their protest about the lateness of the hour at which these new clauses were introduced. It is an outrage that the House should be asked to debate these new clauses under a guillotine when the future of nursery education is at stake.
      My second point is that the Government fought the general election with posters which could be seen throughout Great Britain, containing the slogan that education was not working. These new clauses are designed to prevent nursery education from working in the future.
      One or two issues have become clear in the debate. If there was any confusion in England and Wales about the 1944 Education Act and whether local authorities regarded themselves as having a duty or a discretion, there was no confusion in Scotland. Clearly spelt out in the Education (Scotland) Act 1963 was the duty imposed on local authorities to provide nursery education. There was absolutely no doubt about the position in Scotland.
      1348
      The reason why I highlight the difference is that the Secretary of State has interrupted this debate nearly half a dozen times and has asked my right hon. and hon. Friends whether they believed that local authorities in England and Wales had a duty or a discretion. I suspect that those interruptions were meant to be a clever device to try to portray the fact that—
      Mr. Chris Patten: It is a good question.
      Mr. Ewing: Yes, it is a good question, and I am about to answer it. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) knows that that city has had its fair share of educational problems in the last three or four years. I know something of the educational system in Bath. However, I return to the Secretary of State, who posed a fair question. If he had any commitment to nursery education the Bill would entrench not the discretion of local authorities in this matter but their duty.
      In entrenching the discretion of local authorities the Secretary of State gives the game away. That discretion specifically allows local authorities that do not wish to provide nursery education not to provide it. That covers the position of Oxfordshire county council and thus gets the right hon. Gentlemen's friends in that authority off the hook, apropos what was said by the Attorney-General in considering that case.
      There is no commitment to nursery education here. These clauses entrench discretion. If there was any commitment by the Government, they would have entrenched the duty and not the discretion. The game is given away, because the purpose of these new clauses is to change the law. There is no doubt about that. The purpose of new clauses 1 and 2 is to change the law. It is a disgrace that under a guillotine those clauses should be introduced into the Bill to bring about major changes in the law, with all that that means for nursery education.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) made the point that education authorities would not be able to close nursery schools without the permission of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in

      1349
      England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that I have the postition right, namely, that the procedures that pertain to both primary and secondary schools will also relate to nursery schools on the question of closure. I understand that the proposals must be advertised, that parents have the right to object, that objections will be heard and that the authorities will have to submit the matter to the Secretary of State, who will ultimately decide the issue.
      That is an improvement on the position as we understood it before the debate. I concede that to the Ministers. But the problem was highlighted of the nursery class within a primary school where that primary school is to be closed. Amendment No. 90 should be accepted by the Secretary of State because it would take care of the position where a nursery class is contained within a primary school and there is a proposal to close that school. In our view the Secretary of State should insist that the nursery facilties in that primary school should be replaced in suitable premises in the same locality before any further consideration is given to the question of closing the school.
      I emphasise that this debate is not about playgroups. They do a marvellous job, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland laid emphasis on them in what we considered an inadequate intervention. He stressed the value of playgroups. But this debate is about nursery education, not about playgroups. The Government will not get off the hook because Ministers call in aid the fact that playgroups do a good job. We want an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will consider—even if not tonight—amendment No. 90 before the Bill goes to another place. That amendment safeguards the position of the nursery class which operates within a primary school.
      The other point that I wish to raise with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and through him the Secretary of State for Scotland, is that we have heard a great deal about the number of primary schools to be closed in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State boasts that he will close down over 200 primary schools in Scotland.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: That comment is completely unjustified. I made
      1350
      no such boast and I have never mentioned a number. The hon. Gentleman knows that the initiative for closing primary schools lies with local authorities, and that they require the permission of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.
      Mr. Ewing: The initiative may well lie with local authorities, but the decision lies with the Secretary of State. Whether he likes it or not, the Under-Secretary has given a clear impression throughout Scotland that the schools are overstaffed and that a number will have to close down. If the Minister wants evidence as to where and when he said that, I suggest that he reads the speech that he made in October at the Hamilton college of education to the parent-teacher council. He will read that he told that council that he was determined that a number of schools would close. He should remember his words and be sure of what he says.
      7.30 pm
      I come to the proposal to close schools. I put it to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if there is a need for nursery education in the area where it is proposed to close down a primary school, that school should not be closed but should be used to meet that need. A great deal has been said about the White Paper that was produced in 1972 by the Prime Minister, a former Secretary of State for Education and Science. Whether the present Secretary of State likes it or not, the tenor of the White Paper was a commitment to nursery education. I invite the House to read that White Paper and see the clear indication that the then Secretary of State was anxious to make it a duty to ensure that nursery education would be freely available.
      I was grateful to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the Under-Secretary for the indication that it is not proposed to charge for nursery education. I accept that statement at face value, and if that is the case there is no reason why both amendments should not be accepted. After all, it is clearly written into part I of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 that
      "junior colleges under the management of an education authority shall be without payment of fees".

      1351
      If in 1962 it was accepted to be a good idea to write into legislation that we should not charge for that service, surely in 1980 it is not such a bad idea to adopt the same procedure and accept both amendments. That will make clear the fact that no charges will be made.
      Even the Secretary of State must admit that the argument in favour of nursery education in this debate has been won hands down by Opposition Members. Indeed, a number of Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Bath and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), have made speeches which indicate that they should be in our Lobby tonight. I do not know how several other Conservative Members can bring themselves to vote for these new clauses. In their speeches they showed a clear commitment to nursery education. The hon. Member for Bath was particularly unhappy with the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Secretary of State will make him happier when he winds up the debate. However, I suspect that he and some of his hon. Friends will be led naturally into our Lobby rather than into the Government Lobby.
      Let me say again that what is at stake tonight is the future of nursery education. It is a most outrageous action for any Government to introduce these proposals in a slip-shod way into a Bill when, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said, they are about to undermine the whole fabric of nursery education. That is why I have no hesitation in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clauses. Even more important, I appeal to Conservative Members with progressive thoughts on education to join us in the Lobby. They may be striking a blow against their Government, but it will be a small blow when compared with the major blow that will be struck at nursery education. They will have to decide whether to support the Government's cuts in public expenditure at the expense of the weakest in the community.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire said, the smaller they are the harder the Government hits them. Conservative Members must decide whether they believe that the Government's monitory and economic policy should be exercised at the expense of Britain's three and four-year-olds, or
      1352
      whether education is more important. I suspect that in their heart of hearts they believe that education is more important, and I hope that they will join us in the Lobby.
      Mr. Chris Patten: The tenor of the argument that was put by several of my hon. Friends and myself was that the clauses do not make a scrap of difference to the provision of nursery education. Of course, we are in favour or nursery education, but there will not be more nursery schools until there are more resources to pay for them. That is the point. The clause clarifies the situation. I argued that it did not need clarifying, anyway.
      Mr. Ewing: How I wish that were true! The truth of the matter is that the clauses radically change the situation. The hon. Member for Bath is even more naïve than I appreciated. If he believes that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comes here to incur the wrath of the House over these two new clauses because they do not mean anything, he has a great deal to learn in parliamentary terms. The clauses mean a great deal. The reason why I make the point about the number of primary schools which the Government are determined to close is that there is a golden opportunity to do a great deal for nursery education without necessarily incurring the massive amount of resources which the hon. Member for Bath seems to believe are necessary.
      I am content to rest my argument on what I have said and what has been said by right hon. and hon. Friends who have brought their expert knowledge to the subject. I hope that even at this late hour the Secretary of State will see the wisdom of what we have been saying and withdraw the new clauses. If he refuses to withdraw them, I invite the House to vote them down.
      Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the inadequate brief intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and in view of the differences between the legislation in Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other, will the Solicitor-General for Scotland make an authoritative statement about the legal aspects of the matter, now that he is making one of his infrequent visits to the Chamber?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is ingenious, but in no sense is it a point of order.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) would like to leave some time to debate the next clause. The hon. Member seemed unsure of what I was saying about sub-amendment (a), although the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) accepted it. The fact is that it is totally otiose, because the law already provides in the Education Act 1944 that:
      "No fees shall be charged in respect of admission to any school maintained by a local education authority…or in respect of the education provided in any such school."
      If there were any question of charging, I should have to bring amending legislation to the House. However, I have anounced that I do not intend to charge, and the present law does not allow me to do so.
      The second point that the hon. Gentleman made, which was also made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) was about the reasons why the clauses came to the House at the time and in the way they have done. I thought it much better to table the clauses at this stage, where they could be debated on Report. The alternative would have been to have taken them into a guillotined Bill in Committee. In that way, they might not have been discussed at all. Then, I should have been much more open to attack than by bringing them in at Report stage, where they can be voted upon on the Floor of the House and where we can agree to extend the matter by another two hours.
      My third point is that I have accepted all along that I am changing the law. As far as England and Wales are concerned, the law makes it clear that in future there shall merely be a power rather than a duty to provide education for those under 5. I am changing the law so that it becomes as people have always believed it to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), because he had the frankness to admit that he had always believed, and been advised, that there was no statutory duty. He also had the kindness and frankness to appreciate my remarks about charging.
      1354
      I must turn to the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Frankly, I was appalled at what he said. I remember the time when he came to my room with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and one other person. They argued that I should not agree to charge for education for childen under 5. Secondly, they argued that I should consider turning the discretionary power into a duty The hon. Member for Hillsborough put the case. However, when I specifically asked him, he stood up and said that he had always believed that there was a duty. I am bound to say that that does not accord with my recollection of the conversation.
      To prove his case, the hon. Member then chose to call into account the leading article in The Times Educational Supplement of last week. I totally agree that the article is a clear attack on me and on the Bill. The hon. Member said that that proved that The Times Educational Supplement believed also that there was a duty. The Times Educational Supplement states—I take the words that the hon. Member used against me—that:
      "The crowning irony of this miserable Bill is that it has to be amended to diminish the 1944 Education Act nursery school provision. Mr. Carlisle can hardly be blamed for this. Until Oxfordshire went mad everybody had supposed that LEAs had discretion in regard to local nursery education."
      The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he had believed that it was a statutory duty despite the deputation that he brought to me. He also claimed that The Times Educational Supplement held that view. On what basis does he say that? He bases his claim on a headline on the front page that announces that the statutory duty was to be changed into a power. The previous week The Times Educational Supplement had said that the Department agreed that a statutory duty existed.
      Mr. Flannery: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, I did believe what I said I believed. We can dispute that for ever. However, on the front of the Educational Supplement it says,
      "Nursery Law To Be Changed."
      Underneath it says, "Statutory Duty Will Go." That is what I quoted. I did not say that it had said that in the editorial. That is on the front page.
      Mr. Carlisle: The Times Educational Supplement rightly reported the effect of my clause. The law was to be changed to remove a statutory duty. I had publicly stated that it was a statutory duty. The hon. Member for Hillsborough quoted at length from the leading article. He read the heading,
      "A bad Bill which will positively harm education."
      He referred to the comment about "this miserable provision". He said that it confirmed his conviction that it was a duty. However, the editor clearly said,
      "Until Oxfordshire went mad, everybody had supposed that the LEAs had discretion in regard to local nursery education."
      With great respect, the hon. Gentleman must not deliberately mislead the House in that way.
      I appreciate and respect the arguments of the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), and Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). In fairness, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough resigned from the Department of Education and Science as a result of reductions in expenditure on education. I also appreciated the speeches of the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. McKay) and Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). They have a firm belief in the importance of nursery education. However, the hon. Member for Thurrock must not overdo it. She should not suggest that the Labour Party has a great record and that we have done badly.
      Dr. McDonald: I did not say that.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady said with great pride that between 1974 and 1978 the Labour Party had put such emphasis on nursery education that it had spent £51 million capital. She did not say that they inherited—as I pointed out in my first speech—the plans of my right hon. Friend—now Prime Minister—that were set out in the White Paper of 1972. What did it do with those plans? I quote:
      "1974–75 capital expenditure proposed £21½ million.
      1975–76 capital proposed £17.2 million.
      1976–77 capital proposed £9.2 million.
      1977–78 capital proposed £2.7 million.
      1978–79 capital proposed £4 million and
      1979–80 £4 million."
      She said that when the Labour Party had been in power it had shown such confidence in the importance of nursery
      1356
      education that it had managed to spend £51 million. As I said before, she really means that the Labour Government cut the programme by half, over a period of two years, and by two-thirds in the following year.
      Dr. McDonald: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has listened with such inconsistency. First, I made it plain that I did not think that the previous Labour Government had done all that they should have done for nursery education. In spite of that, I pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of places. I listed those numbers. Although I pointed out that about £50 million had been made available to the nursery building programme, I was at pains to point out that numerous local education authorities, such as Avon, did not take up that allocation—particularly Tory local education authorities. Avon did not take up any of its allocation during the five-year period. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not take part of what I said, without taking the whole.
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady specifically made the point that the numbers had increased. She said that £51 million had been provided, as if that had been a major advance by her party. I say to the hon. Member for Thurrock, and to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—who spoke of the surge ahead in nursery education as a result of the Prime Minister's White Paper—that we were, of course, committed at that stage to an attempt to put the Plowden report into effect within 10 years. When the Labour Party came into power in 1974, it no doubt wished to continue with that. However, the resources were not available then, nor have they been made available.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is right. Whether we have an unenforceable duty on the statute book—as I believe it is—or whether we are honest and admit that it is the power that we believed it to have been, that will not have any effect on the rate of progress towards the type of nursery education that we desire. I do not propose to hold out great hopes; but it is not the wording of the Bill but the resources available to local authorities that will have most effect.

      1357
      In a restrained and confined financial situation, I have assumed in the rate support grant for the years 1980–81, that there will be an expenditure equivalent to that in the previous year. However, I cannot ensure that the money is used in that way. I have provided for additional expenditure for building.
      Mr. Kinnock: For the sake of argument, we shall accept that everyone understood that there had never been a duty, that there had only been a "responsibility" and that awareness of a statutory duty has occured only since the right hon. and learned Gentleman received the advice of the Attorney-General. If he is given the choice between removing any vestige of duty and imposing a clear-cut duty—even within the constraints of limited resources—why has he chosen the former course of deserting the interests of pre-school education?
      Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that point. Resources are the reason. At present resources are not available to carry out the existing statutory duty. Although he may not have intended to, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) summed the matter up for me, as did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that he could not understand why I did not leave it as a duty. He believed that any authority that was genuinely trying to do what it could within the resources available should have no difficulty over duty. I question that assumption.
      Since the Haringey case last year, we know that parents can bring an action against a local education authority to enforce a duty. If, for instance, the county of Northumberland—I take Northumberland because it covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency—says in court that it is genuinely trying to do what it can within the resources available, that is no answer to a claim for breach of statutory duty.
      It is preferable to come clean with the House. I do not believe that at present it is possible to enforce that statutory duty. It should be converted into a power. We should not muddle on on the premise that a group of parents may decide to test the law, for perfectly legitimate reasons, and as a consequence, find that various coun-
      1358
      ties are not meeting their statutory obligations. I should then have to concede that this Government and the previous Government have not given them sufficient resources to do so.
      Finally, with regard to the Oxfordshire question, I cannot say what will happen about a particular claim that may come to the Department with regard to a section 13 procedure. I believe that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough suggested that I was set upon the destruction of nursery education. If that is so, why should I put in a provision that local education authorities that have nursery schools cannot close them without coming to me? I need not have done that, and local authorities could merely have closed those nursery schools.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does that mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept amendment No. 90, which protects existing nursery schools?
      Mr. Carlisle: No. I believe that amendment No. 90 was referred to by the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth. In considering closures, attention must be paid to alternative provisions in the area and to what will happen to the children. However, I do not accept the straitjacket of amendment No. 90.
      I believe that most hon. Members would like to see an extension of nursery education over the years.
      Miss Joan Lestor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used what I had said to build a shaky case. If he is not intent or hell-bent on closing nursery schools, why is he saying that any closures will have to come to him? Will he refuse to close certain nursery schools, bearing in mind the scanty provision that exists?
      Mr. Carlisle: Requiring closures to come to me will act as a deterrent. The procedure will have to be gone through. Other views will be considered, and the case will be judged on its merits. Had I intended merely to close all nursery schools I should not have put forward the provision, and local authorities would be free to close nursery schools under the other provisions.
      I believe that the degree of provision will depend on resources available. Local authorities in difficult times must put first and foremost protection of compulsory schooling for children aged from 5 to 16

      1359
      years. In the rate support grant proposals for the year 1980–81, and in my speech earlier, I indicated that I very much hoped that local authorities would continue to be able to provide substantial facilities for under-fives. I should be far happier to be in a position to invite them to increase those facilities, but in the present financial situation I cannot.
      In the circumstances, it is right to remove an unforceable obligation and replace it by a power that everyone believed existed before today.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 244.

      Division No. 170]

      AYES

      [7.55 pm

      Adley, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dover, Denshore

      Kimball, Marcus

      Alexander, Richard

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ancram, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Arnold, Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Norman

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Eggar, Timothy

      Lang Ian

      Atkinson David (B'mouth, East)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawerence, Ivan

      Banks, Robert

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lee, John

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Farr, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Fell, Anthony

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Llyod, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Llyod, Peter (Fareham)

      Best, Keith

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Loveridge, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Forman, Nigel

      McCusker, H.

      Blackburn, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Blaker, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      MacGregor, John

      Body, Richard

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Bonsor Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter,

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Bottomley peter (woolwich west)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Madel David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Gilmour, Rt Hon sir Ian

      Major, John

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Goodland, Alastair

      Marlow, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Marsall Michael (Arundel)

      Brinton, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Brittan, Leon

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mates, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mather, Carol

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Brotherton, Michael

      Greenway, Harry

      Mawhinney, Dr Brain

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Grieve, Percy

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Mellor, David

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Buck, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Burden, F.A..

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Butcher, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moate, Roger

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hannam, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Monro, Hector

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Moore, John

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Heddle, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Henderson, Barry

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Channon, Paul

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hicks, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Murphy, Christopher

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hill, James

      Myles, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Cockeram, Eric

      Holland, Phillip (Carlton)

      Needham, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Hordern, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Cope, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Neubert, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Newton, Tony

      Corrie, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Costain, A.. P.

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Osborn, John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Critchely, Julian

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Crouch, David

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Perris, Matthew

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Joseph, Rt Hon sir Keith

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Shersby, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Silvester, Fred

      Trotter, Neville

      Pawsey, James

      Sims, Roger

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Speed, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Pollock, Alexander

      Speller, Tony

      Wakeham, John

      Porter, George

      Spence, John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Sproat, Iain

      Waller, Gary

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Dennis

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Stainton, Keith

      Ward, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stanley, John

      Watson, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stevens, Martin

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

      Renton, Tim

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wheeler, John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stokes, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rost, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Thompson, Donald

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Lord James Douglas Hamilton.

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Adams, Allen

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Allaun, Frank

      Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

      Haynes, Frank

      Alton, David

      Deakins, Eric

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Anderson, Donald

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Dewar, Donald

      Home Robertson, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dixon, Donald

      Homewood, William

      Ashton, Joe

      Dobson, Frank

      Hooley, Frank

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dormand, Jack

      Horam, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Douglas, Dick

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

      Beith, A.. J.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Huckfield, Les

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Dubs, Alfred

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Eadie, Alex

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Eastham, Ken

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      John, Brynmor

      Bradley, Tom

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      English, Michael

      Johnston, Russell (Iverness)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Kaufman St Hon Gerald

      Buchan, Norman

      Ewing, Harry

      Kerr, Russell

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Campbell, Ian

      Field, Frank

      Kinnock, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Fitch, Alan

      Lambie, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Lamborn, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lamond James

      Carmichael, Neil

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Forrester, John

      Leighton, Ronald

      Cartwright, John

      Foster, Derek

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & slough)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Foulkes, George

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Litherland, Robert

      Coleman, Donald

      Freud, Clement

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Lyon, Alexander(York)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Cook, Robin F.

      George, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cowans, Harry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

      Ginsburg, David

      McElhone, Frank

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Golding, John

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Crowther, J. S.

      Gourlay, Harry

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      Graham, Ted

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      McNally, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      McNamara, Kevin

      1362

      1363

      McWilliam, John

      Race, Reg

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Magee, Bryan

      Richardson, Jo

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Robertson, George

      Tilley, John

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Torney, Tom

      Maxton, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Roper, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Miller, Or M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Ross. Stephen (Isle ol Wight)

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Weetch, Ken

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ryman, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Welsh, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Sever, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Sheerman, Barry

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Newens, Stanley

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Whitlock, William

      Ogden, Eric

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      O'Neill, Martin

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Park, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Parker, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wright, Sheila

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Pendry, Tom

      Stoddart, David

      Penhaligon, David

      Stott, Roger

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr. George Morton and Mr. James Tinn.

      Prescott, John

      Straw, Jack

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 2

      NURSERY EDUCATION: SCOTLAND
      '(1) An education authority shall have power to provide for their area school education in nursery school and nursery classes.
      (2) The dusties of an education authority under section 1 of the Education (Scotland)
      Act 1962 shall not apply in relation to the provision of school education in nursery school and nursery schools and nursery classes.
      (3) This section applies to Scotland only.'.—[Mr. Younger.]
      8 pm
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, that the clause be read a School time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 246.

      Division No. 171]

      AYES

      [8.07 pm

      Adley, Robert

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Cope, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bright, Graham

      Cormack, Patrick

      Alexander, Richard

      Brinton, Tim

      Corrie, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brittan, Leon

      Costain, A.. P.

      Ancram, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Arnold, Tom

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brotherton, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Dover, Denshore

      Banks, Robert

      Buck, Antony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Durant, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Burden, F. A..

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Butcher, John

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Eggar, Timothy

      Best, Keith

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Elliott, Sir William

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Blackburn, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Farr, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Channon, Paul

      Felt, Anthony

      Body, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clerk, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cockeram, Eric

      Flelcher-Cooke, Charles

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Colvin, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Forman, Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      MacGregor, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Fox, Marcus

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Major, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marland, Paul

      Shersby, Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marlow, Tony

      Silvester, Fred

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sims, Roger

      Gorst, John

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gow, Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Speed, Keith

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Speller, Tony

      Gray, Hamish

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spence, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Mellor, David

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Grieve, Percy

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Sproat, Iain

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Squire, Robin

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Stainton, Keith

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stanley, John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Moate, Roger

      Steen, Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro, Hector

      Stevens, Martin

      Hampson, D Keith

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hannam, John

      Moore, John

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Stokes, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Heddle, John

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Henderson, Barry

      Murphy, Christopher

      Tebbit, Norman

      Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Myles, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Donald

      Hill, James

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Newton, Tony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Hordern, Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Osborn, John

      Trippier, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Trotter, Neville

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Viggers, Peter

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Parris, Matthew

      Waddington, David

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wakeham, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pawsey, James

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Kimball, Marcus

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Waller, Gary

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Walters, Dennis

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Ward, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Pollock, Alexander

      Warren, Kenneth

      Knox, David

      Porter, George

      Watson, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lang, Ian

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wheeler, John

      Latham, Michael

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Whitney, Raymond

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Wickenden, Keith

      Lee, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Renton, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Loveridge, John

      Ridsdale, Jullan

      Luce, Richard

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rost, Peter

      Mr Carol Mather

      McCusker, H.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Buchan, Norman

      Adams, Allen

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Allaun, Frank

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Campbell, Ian

      Alton, David

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Donald

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Canavan, Dennis

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Cant, R. B.

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Bradley, Tom

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Cartwright, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Beith, A.. J.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Cohen, Stanley

      1366

      1367

      Coleman, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Pendry, Tom

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Horam, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Conlan, Bernard

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B ham Sm H)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Huckfield, Les

      Prescott, John

      Cowans, Harry

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Race, Reg

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Richardson, Jo

      Crowther, J. S.

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Robertson, George

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roper, John

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Kerr, Russell

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Deakins, Eric

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ryman, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lambie, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Dempsey, James

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sever, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Lamond, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Dixon, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Dobson, Frank

      Leighton, Ronald

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Dormand, Jack

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Douglas, Dick

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Silverman, Jullus

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Litherland, Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Duffy, A.. E. P.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Soley, Clive

      Dunn, James A.. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Eastham, Ken

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stoddart, David

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      English, Michael

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Ewing, Harry

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Tsylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Faulds Andrew

      McNally, Thomas

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Field, Frank

      McNamara, Kevin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitch, Alan

      McWilliam, John

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Flannery, Martin

      Magee, Bryan

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tilley, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Tinn, James

      Forrester, John

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Torney, Tom

      Foster, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Maxton, John

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Freud, Clement

      Mikardo, Ian

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Weetch, Ken

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Wellbeloved, James

      George, Bruce

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Welsh, Michael

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Golding, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Whitlock, William

      Graham, Ted

      Morton, George

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Hamilton James (Bothwell)

      Newens, Stanley

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Ogden, Eric

      Winnick, David

      Harrison Rt Hon Walter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Woodall, Alec

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wright, Sheila

      Haynes, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Parker, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Parry, Robert

      Mr Hugh McCartney and

      Home Robertson, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr John Evans

      Homowood, William

      Question accordingly agreed to.

      New clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 3

      SCHOOL AND FURTHER EDUCATION REGULATIONS
      '(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

      (a) for requiring teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies to possess such qualifications as may be determined by or under the regulations and for requiring such teachers to serve probationary periods;

      (b) with respect to the teaching staff to be provided in such schools and establishments;

      (c) for requiring the approval of the Secretary of State to be obtained for the use in such schools and establishments of such materials or apparatus as may be specified in the regulations, being materials or apparatus which could or might involve a serious risk to health;

      (d) with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about pupils at such schools and establishments;

      (e) with respect to the duration of the school day and school year at, and the granting of leave of absence from, any such schools.

      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for imposing requirements as to the health and physical capacity of—

      (a) teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies;

      (b) teachers employed by local education authorities otherwise than at such schools or establishments; and

      (c) persons employed by local education authorities in work otherwise than as teachers which brings them regularly into contact with persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years.

      (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of persons—

      (a) as teachers at schools and further education establishments to which this section applies;

      (b) by local education authorities as teachers otherwise than at such schools or establishments; or

      (c) by local education authorities in such work as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above,

      on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and, as respects employment or further employment as a teacher, on educational grounds.
      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision of new premises for, or the alteration of the premises of, any school or further education establishment to which this section applies or any boarding hostel provided by a local education authority for pupils attending any such school
      1370
      or establishment and for the inspection of any such hostel.
      (5) In section 71(a) of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 63(2) of the Education Act 1944 (exemption from building regulations etc.)references to plans approved by the Secretary of State shall include references to any particulars submitted to and approved by him under regulations made by virtue of subsection (4) above.
      (6) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the provision of, and the fees to be charged for, courses of further education at further education establishments to which this section applies, including provision for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such establishments of courses designated by or under the regulations as courses of advanced further education and for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an establishment or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such establishments.
      (7) This section applies to any school maintained by a local education authority, any special school not so maintained, any further education establishment provided by a local education authority and any further education establishment designated by or under the regulations as an establishment substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the said Act of 1944.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to lake the following: New clause 13—Records—and Government amendments Nos. 68, 70, 71 and 79.
      Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Owing to the operation of the guillotine, we now have only 10 minutes in which to consider a new clause which was not debated in Committee, and which has massive implications and constitutional precedents. In those circumstances it should not be introduced in this manner in the House of Commons. In the past it has been proper, in this sort of case, for the measure to be introduced anew in another place. Since teachers, institutions or any of the bodies which are normally consulted have not been consulted on the new clause, has there been a request that it might be fully withdrawn from this place, and properly introduced in another place, where it could be considered anew, rather

      1371
      than as a matter which had been improperly considered by this House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received a request, and I am bound by the resolution which was passed by the House earlier this afternoon. I have no powers to bury that.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) that, whereas I appreciate that at first sight the clause may appear to be formidable, in practice it is not. It is designed merely to provide a statutory basis for the range of powers that I am currently required to exercise by means of subordinate legislation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult the various bodies as to what should be the course of those regulations. The new clause simply lays the basis for them.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult before the Second Reading in the House of Lords?
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I cannot promise that, because I do not know if there will be time to do so. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult before we lay the regulations.
      There is nothing new in the clause. The existing regulations cover school regulations, further education regulations and the handicapped people's boarding regulations. Regulations of this kind have been in force since the immediate post-war period. They cover such important matters as the qualification of teachers, the probationary training of teachers, the length of the school day and the school year, and the power to take action against teachers on the grounds of their unsuitability due to misconduct. They deal with the use of radioactive materials in schools and colleges, and with the approval of further education courses for the purpose of pooling in polytechnics. These regulations have been made in the past under section 5(2) of the Local Government Act 1974, or its predecessor, which gave a general power enabling the appropriate Minister to make regulations prescribing attendance and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority. That was an extremely wide power. That provision, along with others, is to be repealed by the
      1372
      Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which has been read a Second time in the House and is now being discussed in Committee.
      It is therefore necessary to reimplement the existing enabling provisions. The correct place to do so, in so far as the measures relate to education, is in the Bill. In attempting to do that I have set out in detail the sort of matters which the regulations will cover in future. I have decided not to use the wide powers, but to use the more detailed provision which prescribes my powers more strictly, and which has the net effect of reducing the number of regulations by about one-third.
      My intention, as I have said, is that the clause will impose no extra financial or manpower burdens on local authorities, and it is my intention to consult the local authority associations and the main teachers' associations on the content of the regulations to be made under the power.
      I think that it would be more helpful and convenient to the House if, rather than seeking to explain what the various clauses say, I sit down now in case any hon. Member wishes to intervene briefly.
      Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed an absolute mastery of euphemism in the way that he managed to cover, in a very short time, the reasons for putting the new clause before us.
      The fact is that the Secretary of State for the Environment made such an absolute hash of his Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill that the Department of Education and Science—the poor benighted, put-upon DES—has been forced to introduce this important new clause, covering as it does a mass of matters of interest and importance in the provision, administration and management of education, at a guillotined Report stage, when I am sure that the DES would have liked to do it at some other time.
      However, this, together with the new proposals that the Secretary of State has at a later stage on transport, and the debate that we have just had on the important new clause on nursery education, led me to believe, when I saw these things last week, that we did not have an Order

      1373
      Paper so much as an Education (No. 3) Bill. I am sure that we could have usefully employed our time on another Committee stage in giving effective scrutiny and providing amendment even to these apparently urbane and unexceptional regulations.
      The fact is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, the regulations cover the qualifications and probationary requirements, the use of materials, some of them novel, and the very sensitive matter of school records, as well as the duration of the school day and the school year, the health and physical capacity, and indeed the morality, of teachers and of others who may work in schools. Without having to elongate these considerations or the deliberations on the Bill, those in the other place will want to give attention to these matters for the purposes of elucidation.
      I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the undertaking that he gave about consultation. I understand that some preliminary discussion has already started about those matters. I hope that the clause, when introduced, will not suffer because of the unfortunate fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment has effectively deprived the House of giving proper consideration to these matters.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped to hear from the Government that they were able to accept new clause 13, which deals with school records. For a long time I have been pressing that parents should have the right of access to the records kept on their children. That would be a very useful measure. However, I realise that there are some difficulties for the Government, so I very much welcome that at least in their new clause, in paragraph (1)(d), they appear to be taking new powers so that they may in the future be able to make regulations enabling parents to have the right of access to their children's records. I very much welcome that the Government are at least taking the powers to do that, although I appreciate that I and other people concerned about this will have to continue to lobby to make sure that, having taken the power to make the regulations, the Minister makes them.
      Just as I am concerned that parents ought to have the right to see their child-
      1374
      ren's records, so there is a lot of concern among teachers about their rights to see the records that are kept. Those two measures, giving a right to see what records are kept, could usefully be introduced. I hope that the Minister will at least have the matter considered in the other place and see whether it is possible to extend the powers relating to the keeping of records to cover not only pupils but teachers. Everyone has the feeling that there should not be some secret record which may or may not be accurate.
      Therefore, while I am a little disappointed, although not surprised, that the Minister cannot accept new clause 13, I very much welcome that in the clause he has included paragraph (1) (d), which goes a little further than the powers that he has taken in the past.
      Mr. Christopher Price: In the dying guillotine seconds it is proper to make the point that although the Secretary of State takes powers over county and voluntary schools, it is an absolute scandal that under the clause he does not take powers over those assisted places schools on which he is about to spend £55 million of public money.
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [29 January] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2

      REQUIREMENTS AS TO GOVERNING BODIES
      Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 2, line 11, after 'authority', insert
      'or for a non-maintained school, namely a school which receives grants under the Special Schools and Establishments (Grant) Regulations 1959'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 119, in page 2, line 13, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school.'
      No. 117, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
      '(2A) The governing body of every such school as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall include governors appointed by the local education authority by whom it is maintained, or in whose area it is situated.'.
      No. 118, in page 2, line 20, after 'school' insert 'or non-maintained school'.
      No. 120, in page 2, line 40, after 'authority', insert 'or non-maintained school'.
      No. 121, in page 3, line 16, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school'.
      No. 122, in clause 5, page 6, line 4, after 'school', insert 'or non-maintained school'.
      Mr. Hannam: All these amendments, in the names of members of the all-party disablement group, relate to an important sector of the special educational system for handicapped children. The amendments have no financial implications. We are seeking to include this sort of special school—the non-maintained school—in clauses 2 and 5, which deal with appointments to governing bodies.
      In case there are hon. Members who do not have such non-maintained schools in their constituencies, namely, schools for the deaf, blind and handicapped children, I shall give some brief details. The non-maintained special schools are non-profit-making concerns that may receive grants from central Government funds towards capital projects in return for meeting a number of conditions that are laid down in the handicapped pupils and special schools regulations of 1959.
      The running costs of the majority of these schools are met almost entirely by fees paid by local education authorities. There are 112 non-maintained schools in England and Wales. They cater for 82 per cent. of all blind children, 45 per cent. of all deaf children, and 32 per cent. of all handicapped children attending residential special schools.
      I cannot speak too highly of the service and the dedication given by the schools and the voluntary workers and governors who serve them. The non-maintained special schools play an important part in the provision of special
      1376
      education, and are unlike independent special schools in that they are almost entirely dependent upon public funds.
      It is that which makes them, in the words of the Warnock report
      "part of the national system of educational provision in a way that independent schools are not."
      Yet, as the law stands, non-maintained special schools are virtually autonomous, and may select their governing bodies subject to their trust deeds under the 1959 regulations.
      A number of the schools have no parent governors. Under present regulations, teachers are not allowed to be governors. Some, but not all, have local authority representatives as governors.
      Many parents of handicapped children have made representations to Members of Parliament about the lack of involvement in governing bodies. It is true to say that they look to the Bill to bring them more in line with the parents of non-handicapped children.
      Only on Sunday the mother of two severely deaf children, Mrs. Winifred Tumim—who served on the Warnock committee and has worked ceaselessly on behalf of the deaf children and the special schools—telephoned me to implore that Parliament should try to ensure that the Bill is amended to provide for the same parental rights as are being granted to those whose children attend county, voluntary or maintained schools.
      If the provisions of the Bill become law, the non-maintained schools will become further isolated from the educational mainstream. We, in the House, would be in danger of failing to reflect the public interest.
      It is essential that the governing bodies of these schools should be brought into line with those of comparable schools in the maintained sector, if those schools are to become more fully integrated into the special education system as a whole. These amendments would ensure that these schools, financed mainly by local education authorities and Government grants, have parent, teacher and local authority representation on their governing bodies.
      The Bill envisages a new partnership for the parents of other handicapped children. It would be particularly sad

      1377
      if the parents of children who go to non-maintained schools were excluded, especially as such parents seldom have any alternative to the particular school for the deaf, blind or handicapped in their own areas. There is no group of parents which takes a greater interest or involvement in their children's education, as we all know from personal experience in our constituencies. It seems silly to exclude such dedicated parents from the much welcomed increased involvement given in the Bill, but I am afraid that that is the case.
      Ironically, the Bill as it stands creates second-class citizens to the detriment of parents. A small but important section of the public education system would continue to operate a system within a system, which would make it very difficult to achieve the aim of section 10 of the 1976 Act and the integrated system of special education which that section calls for.
      Since the Warnock committee reported in 1978, we have been awaiting Government action. I hope that our waiting will soon be over. I have a great admiration for the special schools in my own constituency, and I know that they have experienced great anxiety about section 10. However, unless we amend the Bill tonight, or in the other place, we shall be only widening the gap.
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am present once again to cross swords with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. Let me assure him that the implementation of the amendments would not cost the Government a penny. That should be attractive for a start. No public expenditure is involved.
      If the amendments are accepted, there might be better government in special schools. The schools will be able to get grass roots opinion. It is unfair to isolate the handicapped child and the parents of a handicapped child. The parents of such children have a vital role to play, not only in caring for their children but also in advising and helping them on the problems that they face as well as in educating those children.
      The fact that up to the present such parents have no representation as of right is a disgrace to our education system. I have no doubt that the Minister—my
      1378
      friend outside the Chamber—will think deeply and carefully about this matter, and I hope that he will not give long-term promises. The time to act is now. These are reasonable, reasoned amendments which would give the handicapped child and the parents of such children a much more vital role to play in their education.
      Mr. David Price: As the House will recognise this is the most formidable of parliamentary lobbies—the all-party disablement group—and I should like to support the amendments.
      The first question which may be asked by hon. Members who do not follow these things as closely as others of us do is why we are concerned about non-maintained special schools in a Bill which on the whole deals with the public sector of education. The reason was given by my hon Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). These non-maintained private schools are all private trust, charitable organizations, and although they get income from their various trusts and charities, the education of almost all the children who attend those schools is paid for by their respective education authorities. Therefore, from the financial point of view this is public sector education.
      My hon. Friend quoted appropriately from the Warnock report, which said that such schools were part of the national system of education provision in a way that independent schools were not.
      Some members of the Opposition may ask why they should be concerned about independent schools. The schools are not, in the classical sense, independent. They are part of the total system—the national system—of dealing with handicapped children.
      Mr. Christopher Price: It is important to emphasise, even with my namesake, that there is all-party unanimity on this point. The local authority maintained schools could not possibly cope with the needs for special education within their own establishments. It is an absolute all-party point that the independent schools in this sector are to all intents and purposes part of the maintained system as they are necessary for local authorities to carry out their duties to special education under the 1944 Act.
      Mr. David Price: That is right. It is necessary to remind ourselves of the contribution made by these schools to the difficult problem of handicapped children. One type of handicap requires different education from another type.
      The Warnock report says:
      "Further, non-maintained special schools in England and Wales catered for 32 per cent. of all handicapped pupils attending residential special schools in 1977 and grant-aided residential special schools in Scotland catered for the same proportion (32 per cent.) in 1976. More specifically,"—
      this is the key point
      "they made provision for 82 per cent. of the blind (94 per cent. in Scotland), 72 per cent. of the deaf (49 per cent. in Scotland), 49 per cent. of the physically handicapped (80 per cent. in Scotland) and 23 per cent. of the maladjusted (38 per cent. in Scotland) who were in residential special schools."
      That is the scale of what we are talking about. This is no little periphery of independent education. This is mainstream education for these children. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give a sympathetic hearing to the cause that we are now pleading on an all-party basis. The Warnock report criticised the fact that many of these schools appeared to be unsupervised by the Government compared with the mainstream of public education in this country.
      It goes on:
      "Further, authorities are not always represented on the governing bodies of schools in their area."
      We are now dealing with the question of our schools in the public sector. The report makes a series of recommendations. That which is germane to this debate is this:
      "we recommend that every non-maintained special school should have its own governing body and that this should include at least one representative of the local education authority in whose area it is situated, or of one of the authorities making particular use of it."
      When we come to the amendments to clause 9 I shall deploy, I hope, an even more formidable argument. I put to my hon. Friend, with his vast experience in the practical running of schools, our exact point. All hon. Members who are concerned with the handicapped child agree with the desire of Mrs. Warnock and her colleagues to integrate the handicapped child into the generality of normal schooling as far as we can, must nevertheless acknowledge that there are those who are
      1380
      so handicapped, or whose disability is so special, that they require a special form of schooling and education. This is where the House will recognise that it is the non-maintained school, above all, that can cater for the need. Our case rests on those figures.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Beith: This is an all-party attempt to persuade the Government that special schools should not be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. There is deep concern that we should not put through the House a major piece of legislation, which will rest on the statute book for some time, without ensuring that where ever possible we have given those in special schools the benefit of its more favourable provisions.
      It is not enough to sit around waiting for Warnock. We all know the problems that will be encountered as we try to get the main recommendations of that report implemented. Governments take longer to consider them than most of us think necessary. They consult further and say that the parliamentary timetable is so crowded that they cannot get their proposals through in the current Session, and there is inevitable delay. During all that time schools are denied the benefits of whatever could have been provided under this legislation. I refer to membership of governing bodies of schools serving the needs of handicapped children. Many of these schools are privately run, although the vast majority of their pupils are educated at public expense.
      No school which caters for handicapped children and has had parent governors has ever had cause to regret the experience. Quite the contrary. I speak from experience as a governor of a special school in the maintained sector. In my experience, parent governors have a contribution to make which is far in excess of that of other governors. They speak from experience of the hard toil of looking after a severely handicapped child and with the dedication and enthusiasm to be found only among those who have brought up handicapped children. They have taken the lead in bringing together other parents in voluntary efforts in support of the school. It is they who have been most ready to take all the children out on trips. Their contribution is one

      1381
      which no one else can make. Schools have been slow to recognise it. As in every other sphere where we think it right to lay down that there should be parent governors of schools we should do it in this sphere where their contribution is so great.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has put the case that it is daft to exclude non-maintained schools from this provision, and there is no point in making long speeches about it. I presume that it is a ministerial oversight, because I can see no reason for excluding non-maintained schools. We expect the Minister not to prevaricate, but to say that he will take action. Much of the Bill is highly controversial, but this provision is not, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I appreciate that the amendment is non-party political, because two Tories, two Labour Members and one Liberal Member have spoken in favour of it. When the 1976 Education Bill was going through the House, I remember the work done on clause 10 by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is renowned in his constituency, and in the country, for the work he does for the handicapped. In Committee the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) paid special attention to the handicapped. I do not need to refer to the knowledge of the Warnock committee's report possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and the great work for the handicapped that has been done by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
      I appreciate the genuine concern of parents of handicapped children who wish to see their children have the same rights as children attending schools in the maintained sector, including maintained special schools. The Bill includes maintained special schools but the question of non-maintained special schools has been raised this evening. It has been made clear by hon. Members over the last few days—I am sure we appreciated it previously—that in most cases parents of handicapped children will be even more
      1382
      concerned than ordinary parents because they wish to ensure that their children are given the fullest opportunity in life that is possible.
      There is no question of a difference of principle here. We should ensure that handicapped children attending schools inside or outside the maintained sector are given equal opportunity, bearing in mind that a great deal of State money maintains them.
      There are two or three problems that I should like to bring to the notice of the House. The first is the catchment area. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter gave the percentage of blind and other handicapped people who attend non-maintained special schools. But one problem with the election of parent governors of non-maintained special schools is that, unlike maintained special schools, the governors often serve not just a local or regional need but a national need. The method of election enshrined in the Bill would seem to be inappropriate if elections have to be made on a national basis.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the parent governors of a school are such whether they represent a national interest or a local one? It is possible to bring parents together in one way or another. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this specific difficulty will break the principle which he has already conceded?
      Dr. Boyson: I take the point. There are special problems. Parents can elect other parents only when they know them and presumably, if it is not a postal ballot, it can be done at the same place. I am not saying that this difficulty cannot be overcome but it is different from the election of governors of schools where people come from a particular area or a small locality.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: That problem will remain whether we talk about it now, next year, or in 10 years' time. I wish that the Minister would net give us that wiffle-waffle from the Dispatch Box. That is padding. He knows full well that there are better reasons. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is waffle.
      Dr. Boyson: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, I con-

      1383
      ceded the principle. But the question is whether the right place for the election of parent governors for non-maintained special schools is in the Bill or elsewhere. That is the only argument. I accept the principle completely. Those parents must have the same rights. I make it perfectly clear that the battle is not about the principle. I do not doubt that those putting this matter forward are motivated by total concern.
      Mr. Spearing: Is it not also an equal difficulty in maintained schools that are boarding schools? That would be a difficulty under the Bill as it stands. Why not adopt those methods in respect of special schools?
      Dr. Boyson: The number of boarding schools within the State sector is not large. We shall be interested to see the methods those boarding schools adopt to elect a parent body. Presumably we will learn something from that. However, this is a problem that must be overcome one way or another.
      Mr. David Price: We can obtain a little help from the private sector because in independent boarding schools there is no difficulty in producing parent governing bodies, particularly in the non-maintained special schools. These are active, concerned parents. It is only a matter of adding a little technical democracy to what is already happening.
      Dr. Boyson: I turn to the second paragraph of my brief. Before doing so I shall give way to any hon. Member in the Chamber who has not yet expressed his opinion on this matter.
      Clause 2 relates to the terms of the instruments of government that are unique to maintained schools. We do not believe that we can achieve what the proponents of the amendment want by amending the clause. The House may wish to enforce statutory provision for the appointment of parents and teachers—I presume that that is what it would want the Government to do on the bodies responsible for non-maintained schools. Hon. Members will be familiar with the list. I asked for it today. It includes many charities—for example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind with 11 schools through to Dr Barnado's with six, to quite a few with one.
      1384
      If the House wants to enforce a statutory provision for the appointment of parents and teachers, it will be necessary to deal with complex trust deeds based upon voluntary foundations. That is different from that which is being dealt with in the Bill. I am not saying that it cannot be done, but I repeat that the voluntary foundations have complex trust deeds. Action will have to be taken if we are to achieve what some hon. Members say the House wants. I am not doubting that it needs to be achieved.
      It is strange that many voluntary bodies, or voluntary charities, have not moved to the election or some form of appointment of parent and teacher governors. Presumably some of them have done so.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: The Minister has pin-pointed one of the problems that has concerned the all-party disablement group for some years. It is endemic in his Department. It has taken us years to make society accept that the handicapped have a full place in society. The fact that they are not included is a measure of the problem.
      Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Warnock report deals in part with integration within our society. There is the approach of integrating if there is any possible means of so doing instead of starting on the other side. As I understand the Warnock report—many hon. Members who are now in the Chamber understand it very much better than I do—it contains a total switch of emphasis. That was welcomed by the House. I accept it myself and I am sure that the Government do so as well.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister saying that he accepts the recommendations of the Warnock report? Is that what he said?
      Dr. Boyson: I was dealing with the principle involved in the Warnock report. I was not dealing with its recommendations, which are numerous. I was answering the hon. Member for Eccles. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been a fight for integration and acceptance instead of division. I said that the Warnock report was involved with that—namely, integration within our

      1385
      society. I was not taking on board all the recommendations of the report.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: Special schools have not yet received the message that parents ought to be among their governors. That is why such provision does not yet appear in the articles.
      Dr. Boyson: If any special schools receive copies of the report of the debate, the message might percolate through. I do not think that anyone is fighting the principle. It is merely a matter of how one does it and where one does it.
      We have not yet dealt with the special conditions of the trust deeds. Basically the Bill is intended for the maintained sector. Clause 2 is concerned with how to elect governors in the State sector. Following the Warnock report there are many problems that will have to be considered—for example, the integration of the handicapped within our society.
      I have been asked whether the Government are to make a long-term promise. I hope to make a short-term promise. We intend to do something, though not in the long term. It is two years since the Warnock committee reported and we shall look at that report and see what we can achieve despite current controls on resources.
      9 pm
      The Government, while not opposing the principle of these amendments, believe that they should be dealt with in the setting of a full consideration of the Warnock report which deals with the integration into society of non-maintained schools. Under that system parents and teachers would be involved. We do not oppose the principle. However, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for the amendment. Clause 2 deals with the issue properly and the matter will require close and special study.
      Mr. Hannam: We understand the complexity of the law governing charitable bodies. My hon. Friend said that the Warnock report would come before us in the short term rather than in the long term. Is he able to give a clearer indication of when the Government are likely to be dealing with Warnock since that will affect our attitude to these amendments?
      Dr. Boyson: I had intended to deal with that matter later. Charities are a
      1386
      complicated issue and there has been a long-standing arrangement in the House that in many cases neither the Government nor the Opposition have interfered with charities. They need to be looked at most carefully in order that they should not be undermined. As a trailer for clause 9 which we shall hurry on to without need of a guillotine, I was going to say that I realise the understandably deep feelings of many hon. Members on this matter and that my right hon. and learned Friend expects to make an announcement before Easter on the Government's response to the Warnock report. This is not a political point, but the Government feel that this issue should not be catered for in clause 2 but should be part of a total consideration of the problem.
      Mr. Hannam: The Minister has been batting on a sticky wicket and he lost two of his wickets before he was able to sustain his third argument. We acknowledge that he has accepted the principle of the arguments we put forward in these amendments. His statement about Warnock is of great significance and it was important that we heard of it at this stage rather than be left in doubt.
      I understand the complexities of charitable trusts and the way in which they administer non-maintained schools. I hope that my hon. Friend will take account of the points made on both sides of the House and that an even fuller explanation of the Government's position will be presented when the Bill is debated in the other place. I am sure the issues will be raised even more vehemently by their Lordships.
      In view of the explanation given by the Minister and the assurance about the implementation and introduction of Warnock by the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, delete 'two' and insert 'three'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we are to take amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
      Mr. Beith: For those who have not compared the Amendment Paper with the Bill, I should explain that this amend-

      1387
      ment is about parent governors and teacher governors. The main amendment is about parent governors, and amendment No. 2 deals with teacher governors. I tabled these two amendments to draw attention to the fact that the Government have moved far from the principles of the Taylor report. That report set out the basis for the representation of parents and teachers on the governing bodies of schools.
      Perhaps the most powerful underlying pressure for the reform of school government has come as a result of bitter experience in various kinds of authorities. That pressure has come particularly in authorities where political considerations have loomed far too large in the selection of governors and where those authorities have believed such considerations to be essential to sustain a political majority—usually of councillors—on every school governing body. That applies to the extent of turning out effective governors, depriving them of their position on bodies of governors, when there is a change in political complexion in the town or county hall. We have seen examples of that in Kent and of the long term stranglehold of one party on governing bodies in County Durham.
      There has been a perversion of the purpose and nature of school governing bodies. They have been lowered in public respect at a time when we should be trying to enhance their status and the job that they do. Even in authorities which have not followed the party political tradition, and have not perverted the purposes of school governors by packing them with political nominees, the real value of such bodies has not been used because they have remained remote from the world of the school.
      When I first became a governor of a secondary school, not one member of that body had either been to a secondary modern school or had sent, or contemplated sending, a child of his to a secondary modern school. Virtually all of them had had no part in the State education system. They were well-intentioned people who by their lights, were playing a useful role in the community, and it was part of their social status to become a member of a school governing body. The result was that, with the best will in the world, the governing
      1388
      body was miles away from the realities of life in the school and the concerns and expectations of the parents. The discussions of that and many other governing bodies reflected that fact.
      Governors have often failed to get to grips with the issues that should be concerning them, not least because they are so far from the concerns of parents and teachers. I am not sure that there would have been the need for this great debate on education—limited though its outcome has been so far—if there had been more effective school governing bodies. If on every governing body there were three or four parents pointing out that they had children coming out of the school who were unable to read properly or to do simple calculations, we should not have needed the apparatus of papers and inspectors from the DES to bring home that point.
      A governing body that was made up effectively of the parents and teaching staff of the school could have played a larger role without jeopardising the professional independence of teachers. That was the spirit in which the Taylor committee was born. Evidence was drawn from a variety of bodies, including the Liberal Party, arguing for major change in the composition of the bodies. Such change would have swept away the idea of a local authority majority body and brought in a partnership between the community, parents and teachers. Although the recommendation of the Taylor committee on partnerships differed from the one that we proposed, none the less we were prepared to commend and encourage its recommendations. The report said:
      "As a matter of principle, membership of governing bodies should consist of equal numbers of local education authority representatives, school staff, parents with, where appropriate, pupils and representatives of the local community—an equal partnership between those who are most concerned with the education system."
      That idea gained some ground and found favour among Conservative Members who were in opposition at the time. That was one of many causes which they were happy to take up when they were in opposition. Let me remind them that in Committee they became firmly committed to the idea that parents should not only account for one or two members of the governing body—two, as it has

      1389
      emerged in the Bill—but should have a substantial place on the body.
      The Leader of the House, the then Shadow Education. Minister, said:
      "I do not think that one parent governor should be isolated among officials, education experts, from which may heaven deliver us, and teachers…One parent alone faced with such fierce competition cannot be an effective influence. The question of numbers, proportion and percentage is of vital importance."—[Official Report, 1 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 732.]
      I entirely agree with that, and that is why I believe that it is insufficient to raise the minimum from one to two. The Bill presents us with two parent governors and one or two teacher governors. I do not believe that to be sufficient. I do not believe that two parents can be immune from the difficulties, problems and isolation to which the former Education Minister attached such importance when he was in opposition.
      The Government have hopelessly watered down the excellent principles established by the Taylor report. They have left a situation which retains all the evils of the worst authorities. If any expectations have been generated by the Bill, they are misplaced. Any local authority that wishes to retain the idea of political domination over a governing body, may do so. It will have a majority at its disposal.
      Any governing body that wishes to retain parent or teacher representation at a minimum or token level will be able to do so quite easily. Authorities vary widely. Several authorities are way ahead of the Bill. Many of them already carry out the Bill's suggestions. A few are not even prepared to have one or two parents, or one or two teachers, on the governing body.
      Any legislation must establish a firmer basis so that parents can insist on fairer representation. Teachers and staff should be able to use that basis to gain representation on governing bodies. The Bill will leave the worst authorities—those that are determined to use governing bodies as a device for political patronage—virtually unrestricted. That was not the motive behind the Taylor report. Nor was it the motive behind the demand for legislation on school governing bodies. I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to include such provisions if they do not care about reforming
      1390
      school government. They should make effective provisions, rather than token provisions such as these.
      Mr. Greenway: I have had considerable experience of serving on school governing bodies that have incorporated parent and teacher governors. It is valuable to have such governors. Parents are consumers, and therefore they represent the consumer angle. That is extremely important. Teachers are deeply involved with the school and with achieving quality. They will attempt to put across the aspirations of the school's teaching force to other governors. Their views will balance those of parents and pupils.
      I believe that there should be a limit on the number of parent and teacher governors. There should be a balance between teacher governors and parent governors. That is fair. Parents will generally take a greater interest in the school if they are allowed some representation on the governing body. Parent governors will discuss with parents the work of the governing body. That is valuable. Naturally, they do not pass on the confidential business of the governing body. It would be wrong if they did. However, they can do much by explaining to other parents the purpose of the governing body. They can also put forward the wishes, thoughts, aspirations and worries of parents.
      It is a two-way process, which is what education is about at almost every level. It should be two-way between teachers and pupils, teachers and parents, and so on. That typifies the process of education. In a philosophical sense, the concept of parent-governors is fulfilling that aspect of education.
      9.15 pm
      Parents gain a wholly new perspective of what a school is about when they have representatives on the governing body. They no longer receive information only from their children or in formal interviews with teachers. They have a new and deeply valuable involvement.
      I do not see a need to push that representation beyond two. I worked in a large school of over 2,000 pupils, and we had only two parents on the governing body. I sometimes thought that we could do with more, but in a governing body of about 20 those two made a positive and reasonable contribution when

      1391
      they had strong feelings. With two representatives, one can always support the other and, where necessary, second a motion.
      The same applies to teachers. In welcoming parents on governing bodies in the strength laid down in the Bill, I also welcome teachers. It is of great importance to maintain a balance. The consumer—parent—should not move ahead of the teacher aspect of education.
      The two teacher representatives can support each other in meetings and report back to colleagues on non-confidential matters. There can be a dialogue between teacher governors and the remainder of the teaching staff that would not exist at formal or informal staff meetings, with the head, deputy head and hierarchy of the school present.
      Teacher representation has existed in areas that I know of for a long time. It is emancipating for teachers to elect their representatives to the governing body, and, in a sense, call them to account or listen to what they have to say about matters discussed in meetings.
      The balance is important. We also need representatives of the local community and the local authority on governing bodies. Representation from parents and teachers is of crucial importance, but, if it becomes too large, undue weight will be placed on their points of view.
      Mr. Beith: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks with great interest. Does he agree that everything that he said supports the Taylor principle of trying to get a balance between the component parts, as his right hon. Friend clearly felt when in opposition? Any pattern that involves equal distribution between the various components, rather than the pattern set out in the Bill, is right.
      Mr. Greenway: Movement is in that direction, and it is not unreasonable. However, I do not believe that we shall ever get quite the equality that is sought. It is not truly attainable. In the end it will come down to personalities. One or two rather forceful parents may be able to push for more than their weight of two places. The community may have weak representatives who, although greater in number, count for little in the
      1392
      body's decision making. In all bodies of people, it is weight of personality that will count in the end. The weight carried by parent governors, teacher governors and other representatives will depend more on the knowledge, experience and determination that they bring to their views than upon the numbers involved. It is important to remember that.
      Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the report of Lord Taylor, who I believe comes from Blackburn, which is in the the next valley to mine in Lancashire. We sometimes see his fleeting figure in the corridors of the House.
      I believe that all hon. Members accept that parents and teachers should be on governing bodies. The parents have committed their children to the school, and therefore they have an intense interest in the standard of that school. Similarly, the teachers have their professional future and their daily satisfaction involved with that school.
      It is a question of numbers and getting the right balance. The Taylor report advocated equal numbers. However, we felt that the important thing was not to make the governing body too big, because if it were too big it would lose its sense of being a close entity. Also, on a large body people feel that if they do not attend they will not put the proceedings of that body at risk.
      We also feel that in so far as the local education authority is still largely responsible for the school, and is totally responsible for its financing, it is wrong to divide the responsibility for financing from that for running the school. Such a division could be dangerous and could turn a governing body into a talking shop, passing resolutions demanding more money and more resources which would have little effect in county hall.
      I know that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed does not agree with us on this matter, but we have left in the Bill the right of local authorities to have a majority on the governing body if they so wish. Once we did that, the rest followed on the limitation of numbers. I know that if the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed had his way the first restraint would not have been inserted.

      1393
      I think that it is particularly important that there should be two parents on a governing body. If there is only one parent he may not feel that he can take part in the debate, and he may feel isolated. At least if there are two parents there is a mover and a seconder and a debate can go ahead.
      Subsection (8) enables the head teacher to decide whether he will be a governor automatically or whether he will attend the governing body as a school official. If he decides to attend as a member of the governing body, which is his right, there are three teachers present. Obviously the head teacher will have some degree of communication with his staff. If he does not, no governing body can save that school. Thus, there will be three members of the teaching profession at the meeting—two staff members plus the head teacher. It is important to remember that if the head teacher wishes to attend as a voting governor he may do so.
      If one looks at the Bill, one sees that it says "at least" two teachers. No limitation is put on enlightened authorities which might wish to have more than two parents and two teachers on the body. We have legislated for a bare minimum. In the Bill we have tried to enhance good practice. Many governing bodies already have bodies of teachers and bodies of parents, but we are picking up those who have not yet caught up with the main stream. We are laying down a minimum of two parents and two teachers.
      Governing bodies are very important. Basically, they should keep an eye on the curriculum and the arrangements of the school. In my experience I have found that parent governors are most useful because they have committed their children to that school. When one is making political appointments, one should look to see whether there is among the members of one's party a parent with a child at that school. The most effective parent governors whom I have known have not been elected but have been nominated by their political party because their children were attending that school. That is better than nominees joining that body whose children attend schools elsewhere. They also have political influence outside in county halls and centres of power.
      1394
      There is no means whereby that could be put in the Bill, even if I could persuade my own party. The Bill is an improvement on the existing situation. It is a question of extending good practice. We feel that the two plus one situation—the two teachers plus the headmaster, who can attend, if he wishes, as a full voting member of the governing body—is a big improvement.
      Mr. Beith: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the party political parent. It would be an improvement on the practice of some authorities if, in appointing political nominees, they were chosen with some qualification to exercise the task. The approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman would only contribute to the cynicism about political parties that prevails among people who do not belong to them, or do not know much about them, and who take the view that one cannot get anywhere unless one belongs to the right group. I am thinking of areas where one political party has a prevailing influence.
      The strategy recommended by the hon. Gentleman would not do his friends much good in County Durham. He will not get many parents on school governing bodies there. A different story would apply in some other parts of the country. We want to ensure that parents can become governors of schools without having to show the right party card and that parents placed on governing bodies are recognised not as token representatives but as equal partners. The hon. Gentleman did not make out a strong case against that. He made clear that what has determined the size of parents' representation has been the decision that the local authority should have the majority on the school governing body.
      The tide of reason flowed up the beach of Conservatism a little further in the last Parliament but ebbed back in time for them to get into office. By that stage—I do not know under whose counsels—the principle of parity between these component parts had been lost. I do not think that the situation is satisfactory. We should increase the proportion of parent governors. I should have liked to go back to what Taylor wanted and what my party wanted, which was equal partners with guaranteed equal shares. At the very least, the parent representation should be three and not two.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 254.

      Division No. 173]

      AYES

      [9.28 pm

      Alton, David

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Wright, Sheila

      Cryer, Bob

      Penhaligon, David

      English, Michael

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Field, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Mr. Alan Beith and

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Mr. Russell Johnston.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Loveridge, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Arnold, Tom

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macfariane, Neil

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacGregor, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fox, Marcus

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Madel, David

      Best, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Major, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marland, Paul

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gorst, John

      Mather, Carol

      Blackburn, John

      Gow, Ian

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Blaker, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mawby, Ray

      Body, Richard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gray, Hamish

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Greenway, Harry

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grieve, Percy

      Mellor, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Bright, Graham

      Grylls, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Brinton, Tim

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Moate, Roger

      Brittan, Leon

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Monro, Hector

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moore, John

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Hannam, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mudd, David

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hawksiey, Warren

      Murphy, Christopher

      Buck, Antony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Myles, David

      Budgen, Nick

      Heddle, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Burden, F. A..

      Henderson, Barry

      Needham, Richard

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nelson, Anthony

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Hicks, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Newton, Tony

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Cranley

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Osborn, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hooson, Tom

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Parris, Matthew

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Corrie, John

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pawsey, James

      Costain A.. P.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Critchley, Julian

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, George

      Crouch, David

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Raison, Timothy

      Dover, Denshore

      Knox David

      Rathbone, Tim

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lamont, Norman

      Renton, Tim

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lang, Ian

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Latham, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lee, John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Emery, Peter

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lonnox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shersby, Michael

      Fell Anthony

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Silvester, Fred

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sims, Roger

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Watson, John

      Spence, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd A Stev'nage)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Trippier, David

      Wheeler, John

      Sproal, Iain

      Trotter, Neville

      Whitney, Raymond

      Squire, Robin

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wickenden, Keith

      Stainton, Keith

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Viggers, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, John

      Waddington, David

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Stevens, Martin

      Wakeham, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stokes, John

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Tapsell, peter

      Waller, Gary

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. John Cope and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ward, John

      Mr. Peter Brooke.

      Thompson, Donald

      Warren, Kenneth

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      GROUPING OF SCHOOLS UNDER SINGLE GOVERNING BODY
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 14, at end insert—
      '(5) Any arrangement under this section may if it does not relate to any voluntary school, be terminated at any time by the local education authority by whom it was made, and any such arrangement which relates to a voluntary school may be terminated by agreement between the local education authority and the governing body constituted by the arrangement or, in default of agreement, by one year's notice served by the local education authority on the governing body or by one year's notice served by the governing body on the local education authority.'.
      Subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to bring to an end, either in whole or in part, the grouping arrangement of schools. The provision ensures that he is in a position to enforce the Government's long-term policy that, in so far as it is practicable, each school should have its own governing body if he considers that at some time in the future an authority has been dilatory in bringing that about.
      The Association of County Councils has pointed out that as presently drafted the clause makes no provision enabling a conscientious authority to degroup its governing schools of its own initiative.
      On reflection, we agree that there should be such a provision, and the amendment simply repeats the provision presently made in section 20(5) of the 1944 Act for existing grouping arrangements. We are grateful to the ACC for drawing the Government's attention to this, and I shall be surprised if the House does not accept the amendment.
      1398
      Briefly put, we wish that every school should eventually have its own governing body. Certain authorities feel that that would be too expensive in the short term because of the number of clerks required for the servicing of the governing bodies. As the Bill stands, the break-up into individual governing bodies can be enforced by the Secretary of State. The ACC asked for an amendment only to be tabled so that they could be broken up as soon as they could be serviced properly. It is a servicing amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4

      GOVERNORS' PROCEEDINGS AND TENURE OF OFFICE
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—
      'and as to the publication of information relating to those meetings and proceedings.'
      The amendment ensures that subsection (1) provides sufficient scope for the making of regulations concerning the publication of information about the meeting and proceedings of governing bodies. I do not think that anyone will object to the amendment.
      We discussed the matter during the course of the previous Government's Bill last year, and there was agreement then. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat. There was agreement on both sides of the Committee at that time that it was important that governing bodies' minutes were made public. During the Committee stage of that Bill there was considerable bipartisan agreement that some record of the proceedings of governing bodies should be made readily available to those directly interested. The Labour Ministers

      1399
      in that Committee undertook to make suitable provision. All that we are doing is to ensure that that can be done under the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '((3) Where an aided or special agreement school has an instrument of government made after the coming into force of section 2 above, any decision taken at a meeting of the governors shall, if it is of the kind specified in subsection (4) below, require confirmation at a second meeting of the governors held not less than twenty-eight days after the first.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (5).
      Dr. Boyson: We are moving faster now, and can join the two amendments. The amendments were brought forward because of discussions in Committee.
      When discussing clause 4 at that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who is in the Chamber, drew my attention to the concern felt by the Churches that the requirement for a second meeting to consider the matters listed in subsection (4) should be automatic. Their anxiety was that the provision that required a second confirmatory meeting only when requested by two or more governors might not provide sufficient protection for foundation interests on matters of fundamental importance.
      The Bill was drafted in its present form in the belief that it provided sufficient protection for foundation interests. In view of the concern that has been expressed we have tabled the amendments to make the second meeting automatic, as requested by the Churches. It is being introduced for the protection of the foundation governors, so that no change can be made on something that affects them without a majority of foundation governors being present at the meeting. If they are not present at the first meeting, the second meeting will be automatic rather than it being asked for by two or more governors. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am deeply obliged to my hon.
      1400
      Friend for introducing the amendments. I am grateful to him also for telling me that I am in the Chamber. That is a reassuring thing to know.
      I think that my hon. Friend will accept that a number of the possible decisions under subsection 4(4) are of a major order. They are fundamental, and could be of great importance to schools. As originally drafted—although not intended—it appeared that a decision to hold a second meeting might be called only if required by two or more governors.
      I deployed the arguments in Committee, and I do not need to go over them now. This is typical of the way in which my hon. Friend approached his work throughout the long Committee stage. He has been very responsive to arguments that have been put to him, and I am very much obliged to him for his approach.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (5).—[Dr. Boyson.]

    Clause 6

      PARENTAL PREFERENCES
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 7 in page 6, line 25, at end insert
      'in that authority or any other authority'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 8, in page 6, line 35, at end add 'or—
      '(d) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education of another child, who lived nearer that school.
      No. 9, in page 6, line 35, at end insert
      '(d) if compliance with the preference would be incompatible with the arrangements for admission to schools in the authority which are not based wholly or partially on selection by reference to ability or aptitude'.
      No. 10, in page 6, line 35, at end insert—
      '(d) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education of another child'.
      No. 11, in page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) In the event of a local education authority not complying with subsection (2)

      1401
      above by virtue of the provisions of subsection (3)(c) above, the local education authority shall explain to the parent in writing the reasons why the preference cannot be complied with.'.
      No. 12, in page 7, leave out lines 4 to 6.
      No. 114, in clause 13, page 13, line 37, at end insert—
      '(2) The rights and duties of subsection (1) above do not apply if compliance with the proposals of any person or governor of a school would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources or the arrangements for admission to a proposed school or existing school are based wholly or partly on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.'.
      Mr. Kinnock: Clause 6, which we are now discussing, concerns the fulfilment of parental preferences. As we noted in Committee, there is no difference in principle between the attitudes held by the two sides of the House towards the desirability of parents having preferences, expressing preferences and wherever possible, having those preferences fulfilled. However, the Bill sets down limitations which can be exercised by local education authorities.
      This series of amendments would make the limitations more specific and would require that a local education authority had regard to matters which are not as yet included in the Bill. For example, amendment No. 7 would require that the local education authority should not have to meet the preference expressed by a parent if the compliance with that preference
      "would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources"
      in that authority or any other authority. This is in anticipation of the circumstances which could arise as a consequence of the implementation of a later part of the Bill—the provision that has been made for the recoupment of costs between different local education authorities.
      This and other aspects of the amendments are intended to ensure that where a parent expresses a preference it is a preference that is based upon a calculation of the educational amenities and opportunities that are available to that parent's children in the area in which they live. It should be in fulfilment of an educational desire for the future of that child, and should riot be employed as a
      1402
      means of hopping from one area to another or from one school to another. For reasons either of commendable interest in their children or, in some cases. because of a misbegotten interpretation of what schools in the area offer, well advantaged or highly articulate parents sometimes abuse the right of preference.
      The Government should have no difficulty in accepting that amendment, because it simply expands and defines the restraint which they have already sought to impose by means of the wording of the Bill.
      Mr. Spearing: I agree that clauses 1 to 6 are similar to those contained in a previous Bill, but does not my hon. Friend agree that the effect of removing the requirement of an educational plan which measured efficiency of education and efficient use of resources, is that those clauses will be very different from what they would have been in the previous Bill?
      Mr. Kinnock: I am happy to draw to the attention of the House the new clause which in happier circumstances, and without the guillotine, my hon. Friend would have moved. It is a sort of "War and Peace" new clause in that it continues for two whole sides of closely packed writing. It is an admirable use of the amendment paper, as well as an admirable exercise in Back Bench capacity. It would have been an admirable addition to the Bill, if we had had the opportunity of debating it.
      Clause 6, in the right hands, dedicated to the advancement of educational opportunities and the fulfilment of educational preferences, set against the background of the educational plan in the new clause, is an excellent idea. In other hands, set against the background of a Bill that in many other respects provides special advantages for parents who are well able—becauseof their individual material advantages, or the advantages of their own education—to use the Bill to depart from the general non-selective provision in an area, is a different prospect altogether.
      We tabled amendment No. 9 to ensure that, if compliance with the preference is incompatible with arrangements for admissions to schools in the authority area, which are not based wholly or partly on

      1403
      selection by reference to ability or attitude, the preference need not be met. We seek to protect the non-selective provision in a particular local education authority area. The great danger arises, especially with the changes that are made in clauses 12 and 13, that schools can be set up. The use of schools can be changed to make a comprehensive, non-selective secondary education system in an area almost totally unworkable by ensuring that within that generally nonselective provision schools can be created that are either selective by tests of ability or attitude, or even, which is much worse in many ways, socially selective on the basis of the taste and not the educational preferences of parents. We see an illustration of that hovering on the horizon. I refer to the Twyford School in Ealing. The danger is that that could become an epidemic throughout many local education authorities. If the Government accepted the additional restraint upon the expression of preferences, the possibility of that occurring would be much smaller. The possibility of maintaining a non-selective pattern of secondary education, which is wholly desirable to the House, would be that much stronger.
      I urge the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this proposition. He recognises—although few Government supporters might agree with him—that, if the comprehensive system is required to live cheek by jowl, side by side, with the selective system, the comprehensive schools become the latter-day equivalent of the secondary modern schools, which no longer exist in many areas. Whatever the aspirations of the Minister to academic excellence—or whatever criteria he employs in the judgment of a school—he would not want the barrel of healthy, green, non-selective apples to be poisoned by the deposit of a rotten selective apple. I hope that he will take the advantage offered by this amendment to ensure that that is avoided.
      The next amendment seeks to include a principle of which the Opposition are proud and one which we gladly espouse. I refer to the principle of the neighbourhood school. The shortcomings of neighbourhood schools are attributable largely to the failure, mainly of the Government—having acknowledged the afflictions that
      1404
      some neighbourhood schools in some, especially disadvantaged neighbourhoods experience—to compensate for such disadvantages and to solve the educational problems in those areas.
      Apart from those difficulties, the whole idea of the neighbourhood school is laudable. In the overwhelming majority of communities the neighbourhood school is well-established and unexceptionable. It is welcomed and depended on by the community. It is respected and recognised by the community and used for its proper educational and social purposes. It is in areas where there is a diversity of provision, where there is a proximity of secondary schools and secondary provision, that the problem of the neighbourhood school and enmity towards it arises. That should present a challenge. The Government should seek not to avoid the problem but to recognise and move to meet it.
      In asking in amendment No. 10 that the preference be restrained if compliance with it would prejudice the provision of efficient education for another child, we are seeking to prevent the creaming off and the mobility that can diminish and possibly destroy the proper provision of education for children whose parents either cannot or will not shift them around between schools.
      Amendment No. 11 requires that, in the event of a local education authority not complying with a preference expressed by a parent by virtue of the provisions of subsection (3)(c), because there is a selective secondary school system in its area, that local education authority shall explain to the parents in writing the reasons why the preference cannot be compiled with.
      If local education authorities still have selection at the age of 11 for secondary schools, or might take advantage of the Education (No. 1) Bill or this Bill, if a permissive Government give favourable regard to the reinstitution of 11-plus examinations, we want those authorities to provide an explanation to the parents of why a child has not been successful in those selection tests. Notices appear in newspapers, there are letters from directors of education, and announcements are made in school assembly, but no attempt is made to explain to parents that it is the upholding of this deluded system of

      1405
      selection and testing that has meant that some children at the age of 11 are regarded as successes and some as failures.
      Local authorities should be faced with the prospect of having a duty to make that explanation to the parents of children who have not been successful in those examinations and to explain why the parents' preference cannot be met. That duty should be imposed on them so that they have to justify their adherence to the educationally insupportable practice of selection by examination at the age of 11.
      Dr. Boyson: I recommend my hon. Friends to resist the amendment. It would limit the parental choice, about which we are very concerned, that is built into the early clauses.
      On amendment No. 7, a choice must be made without affecting the efficient use of resources in the local authority area in which that choice is made. Acceptance of the amendment would mean that the efficient use of resources would have to be considered in that authority or in any other authority. If a child who lived on the border between authority A or authority B wanted to go to a school in the area of authority B, before that authority could accept the child it would have to
      check with authority A that acceptance of the child would not affect the efficient use of resources there. The amendment would import a limitation, massive bureaucracy and a huge abuse of expenditure which we would not wish.
      The battle on recoupment tomorrow evening will be exciting, and many of us look forward to it. In North-West London and other areas the question of automatic recoupment, so that there can be movement between schools that were built before the new boundaries were made, is something that parents want. We do not want any limitation on that.
      Amendment No. 8 deals with neighbourhood schools. We should all like to see these schools working, but we also know the limitations of neighbourhood schools in many areas of our cities at present—
      It being Ten o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [29 January] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 315.

      Division No. 174]

      AYES

      [10 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Conlan, Bernard

      Field, Frank

      Adams, Allen

      Cook, Robin F.

      Fitch, Alan

      Allaun, Frank

      Cowans, Harry

      Flannery, Martin

      Anderson, Donald

      Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Crowther, J. S.

      Forrester, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cryer, Bob

      Foster Derek

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Foulkes, George

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Davidson, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)

      George, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Ginsburg, David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Deakins, Eric

      Golding, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bradley, Tom

      Dempsey, James

      Graham, Ted

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dewar, Donald

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dixon, Donald

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Dobson, Frank

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Dormand, Jack

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Douglas, Dick

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Buchan, Norman

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Duffy, A.. E. P.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Ian

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Haynes, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eadie, Alex

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Eastham, Ken

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire);

      Cant, R. B.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Home Robertson, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Homewood, William

      Cartwright, John

      English, Michael

      Hooley, Frank

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Horam, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Huckfield, Les

      Cohen, Stanley

      Evans John (Newton)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Coleman, Donald

      Ewing, Harry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Concannon, Rt Hon I. D.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Silverman, Julius

      John, Brynmor

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Soley, Clive

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Kerr, Russell

      Morton, George

      Stoddart, David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Stott, Roger

      Kinnock, Neil

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Strang, Gavin

      Lambie, David

      Newens, Stanley

      Straw, Jack

      Lamborn, Harry

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Lamond, James

      Ogden, Eric

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Leighton, Ronald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Lest or, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Litherland, Robert

      Park, George

      Tilley, John

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Parker, John

      Torney, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Parry, Robert

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Pendry, Tom

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Prescott, John

      Weetch, Ken

      McElhone, Frank

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Wellbeloved, James

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Race, Reg

      Welsh, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Richardson, Jo

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      McMahon, Andrew

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Whitlock, William

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McNally, Thomas

      Robertson, George

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McNamara, Kevin

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      McWilliam, John

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Magee, Bryan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Roper, John

      Winnick, David

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)

      Woodall, Alec

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Ryman, John

      Wright, Sheila

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Maxton, John

      Sever, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Meacher, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Mr. Terry Davis and

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Mr. James Tinn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Brotherton, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alton, David

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Eggar, Timothy

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Arnold, Tom

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Emery, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Buck, Antony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Budgen, Nick

      Fairorieve, Russell

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Burden, F. A.

      Farr, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Butcher, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Banks, Robert

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Beith, A. J.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Channon, Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Best, Keith

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Fox, Marcus

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Freud, Clement

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fry, Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Blaker, Peter

      Cope, John

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      Body, Richard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Corrie, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Costain, A. P.

      Gllmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Critchley, Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Crouch, David

      Gorst, John

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Gow, Ian

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bright, Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Brinton, Tim

      Dover, Denshore

      Gray, Hamish

      Brittan, Leon

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Greenway, Harry

      1408

      1409

      Grieve, Percy

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mather, Carol

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Shersby, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Mawby, Ray

      Silvester, Fred

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Sims, Roger

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Hampson Dr Keith

      Mellor, David

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Hannam,John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Speed, Keith

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Speller, Tony

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Spence, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Hayhoe Barney

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Heddle, John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Sproat, Iain

      Henderson, Barry

      Moate, Roger

      Squire, Robin

      Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Stainton, Keith

      Hicks, Robert

      Monro, Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanley, John

      Hill, James

      Moore, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Steen, Anthony

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Stevens, Martin

      Hooson, Tom

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hordern, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Stokes, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Myles, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Needham, Richard

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Neubert, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Newton, Tony

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Johnston, Russell (Iverness)

      Osborn, John

      Thompson, Donald

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Parris, Matthew

      Trippier, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Trotter, Neville

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Knox David

      Pawsey, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Lamont, Norman

      Penhaligon, David

      Waddington, David

      Lang, Ian

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wakeham, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Latham, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Pollock, Alexander

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Lawson, Nigel

      Porter, George

      Waller, Gary

      Lee, John

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Wallers, Dennis

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Ward, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Watson, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wheeler, John

      Loveridge, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Luce, Richard

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wickenden, Keith

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Renton, Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      McCrindle, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wilkinson, John

      McCusker, H.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wolfson, Mark

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Rost, Peter

      Madel, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Major, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Mr. John MacGregor and

      Marland, Paul

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

      Marlow, Tony

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 2

      SCHOOL ADMISSION APPEALS
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendments up to the end of schedule 2 moved by a member of the Government. There are three Government amendments and it might save the time of the House if the House were to indicate whether it desired a Division on amendments Nos. 75, 76 or 77.
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 37, line 22, at end insert—
      '3A.. An appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 above shall be included in the bodies to which sections 173(4) and 174 of the Local Government Act 1972 (allowances) apply.'.
      No. 76, in page 38, line 1, after '9', insert
      'Appeals pursuant to arrangements made under section 7 of this Act shall be heard in private except when otherwise directed by the authority or governors by whom the arrangements are made but'.
      No. 77, in page 38, line 11, at end insert
      '; and neither section 106 of the Local Government Act 1972 nor paragraph 44 of Schedule 12 to that Act (procedure of committees of local authorities) shall apply to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 above.'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

    Clause 9

      NURSERY SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'in' in line 24 and insert—
      'A local education authority may, at its discretion, implement the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 above'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take amendment No. 123, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'nursery schools' to end of line 25.
      Mrs. Taylor: I will speak briefly on this amendment not because it is unimportant but because there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak on amendment No. 123.
      1412
      The amendment seeks to ensure that the provisions in clauses 6, 7 and 8—the clauses relating to parental preference, the appeals system and to information about schools—should apply at the discretion of the local education authority to nursery schools and special schools as well as to those already covered by the provisions of these clauses.
      Many hon. Members wish to speak on the issue of special schools. The Opposition feel that as far as possible special schools should be treated as ordinary schools. We do not see why the provisions of clauses 6, 7 and 8 should not apply to special schools. We accept that different arrangements may be, and often are, made about admissions. These clauses do not relate simply to admissions to special schools and the criteria laid down for admission. The clauses relate to the position of parents and the degree to which they can exercise influence or choice about the special school to which their child may be allocated and the information to which such a parent is entitled about that school. We see no reason why that information should not be forthcoming to the parents and we believe, as do many organisations outside the House such as the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, that the way in which the Government have presented the matter discriminates against children and parents of children in special schools. We cannot see any hardships that would ensue if the Government accepted our proposals.
      10.15 pm
      In a recent debate, the Under-Secretary referred to the Warnock report. He said that the Government would make a statement about their position in relation to that report. We believe that the amendment is in line with the spirit of the report. The amendment would allow special schools and children in those schools to be treated in almost the same way as children in ordinary schools. We hope that the Minister will accept the principle of our amendment.
      The clause and the amendment also relate to nursery schools. We discussed the subject briefly in Committee. At that time, some interesting facts emerged. At times, the Minister surprised the Committee with indications about possible appeals for certain under-fives. He

      1413
      indicated that there would be different rights for parents of different 4-year-olds in different circumstances. For example, the parents of a 4-year-old child who were asking for a place at an infant school for that rising-five would have a right of appeal under clause 7 if the application were turned down.
      We welcome the extension of the appeal system to that extent, but it creates an anomaly. The Secretary of State spent some time this afternoon telling the House that it was his duty to clarify the law and clear up anomalies. However, by their approach to this question, the Government are creating another anomaly. The 4-year-old whose parents wish him to go to an infant school as a rising-five will have a right of appeal if the place is refused but a 4-year-old whose parents wish him to go to a nursery school will have no right of appeal. While many parents would welcome the admission of their 4-year-old into an infant school, others believe that under-fives can be taught more effectively and appropriately at nursery school. That is one difficulty that the Minister has not faced.
      In view of the new clause relating to the provision of nursery education that was passed today, and because of our fears about the way in which the new clause will work in practice and the reduction in available nursery school places, we believe that it is more important that the subject of clause 8, relating to information, should be made to apply as widely as possible and should relate to nursery schools. We believe that there is a possibility that many local authorities will reduce the number of nursery school places. It is therefore even more important that parents have a right to know the basis on which allocations are made.
      Those are important points. In Committee the Minister was not particularly forthcoming. Indeed, some of his remarks added to the confusion and the anomalies. I hope that he will clarify the position. I also hope that he will indicate his sympathy towards the problems that he is creating for children in special schools and for their parents. I hope that he will take action to clear up the anomaly of the treatment of 4-year-olds in infant and primary schools, and those in nursery schools. We need some re-
      1414
      assurance about the Minister's attitude towards the issues that we have raised.
      Mr. David Price: I wish to speak to amendment No. 123. If the amendment is accepted, it will remove the words
      "special schools or children in need of special educational treatment."
      from the clause. The clause excludes the parents of children in special schools from the provisions of the preceding three clauses. Those clauses assist parents. They give them rights.
      I had hoped that it would be unnecessary to argue the case. However, I must apparently do so. When the clause was discussed in Committee, the Minister said:
      "This clause was drafted with the best of intentions".
      Of course, my hon. Friend always has the best of intentions. He continued:
      "but if it can be shown that there would be overwhelming advantage in changing it, we shall come back to it on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 December 1979; c. 847.]
      The case has been made. There is an overwhelming disadvantage in leaving the clause as it is. If our amendment is accepted it will remove the disadvantage that my hon. Friend is imposing on the parents of disabled children. That is entirely in line with Government thinking. When the present Leader of the House—that most distinguished of my many distinguished colleagues—was Shadow spokesman for education, he spoke during a debate on a previous education Bill. With his normal ability to get to the heart of the matter, he said:
      "We also welcome that part of the new clause under which parents are brought in."
      Mark those words. He continued:
      "That is in accordance with our philosophy of increasing parental influence in education and our belief that, if a child is to go to a special school, parental consent is required."—[Official Report, 1 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 724.]
      That is entirely in line with the recommendations of the Warnock report on the special educational needs of handicapped children. The chapter in the Warnock report entitled "Parents as Partners"—I suggest that clause 9 denies that concept—begins:
      "We have insisted throughout this report that the successful education of children with special educational needs is dependent upon the full involvement of their parents; indeed,

      1415
      unless the parents are seen as equal partners in the educational process the purpose of our report will be frustrated."
      Are we, so early on in the consideration of the report, to frustrate its whole purpose?
      May I anticipate my hon. Friend's reply? He gave us a trailer in an earlier debate. He indicated that it was possible, come the spring and the crocuses and tulips, that some Green Paper, some White Paper, or a White Paper with green edges—a little discussion paper on Warnock—would be published. That response is not adequate, because my hon. Friend gave no indication about early legislation upon or implementation of the Warnock report. Even had he done so, we know that the best of departmental legislative intentions in February have a habit of being frustrated by other priorities of Governments come October and November and the Queen's Speech.
      If my hon. Friend insists on that as his only defence, I am reminded of a young man who has been walking out for many months with a girl. He is asked "John, how are you getting on? Have you proposed yet?" He replies "Oh, yes. I popped the question." "Did she accept you or refuse you?" "No. She said 'Ask me again in a year's time.' "One knows the value of that sort of acceptance, and that is what we have so far been offered by my hon. Friend.
      I suggest that the amendment has the merit that it does justice but does not cost public money. My hon. Friend will not be hauled over the coals by the Chief Secretary or any of his satellites. All members of his Department will be able to look their Treasury colleagues straight in the eye.
      The clause is a grey provision, drafted by grey little lawyers, with grey little hearts. I invite my hon. Friend to reject the grey advice. He is a bigger man than that. He should allow his natural instincts for generosity to have the better of that little grey bit of paper with the black, but not the grey, words on it "Resist, resist." We all know the way that it is done. He would do better to have in front of him the words of that great American poet, Emerson, who said
      "Let us treat men and women well; treat them as if they were real; perhaps they are."
      I promise my hon. Friend that if he treats the parents of handicapped children
      1416
      as if they were real—and I suggest that they are—he will not run into difficulty with his Treasury colleagues and he will do justice to those real people whom the whole House respects and wishes to help.
      Mr. Ashley: I support most of what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said, but he is wrong in saying that the clause is drawn up with the best of intentions. The clause is based on a misunderstanding. I do not know whether the intention is good or bad, but it is a condescending and patronising clause, which some of us bitterly resent. It will deprive parents of disabled children of the rights given to the parents of non-disabled children.
      I know that the Minister is sympathetic, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is, too. But somehow, they have been persuaded to put the clause in the Bill. Why should they prevent parents of handicapped children having a voice in the choice of their child's school?
      I do not want to make this a party political issue. It is not. I simply remind the Secretary of State that in the previous Government the Minister with responsibilities for the disabled went out of his way to bring into Warnock a representative of the disabled—Mrs. Tumin.
      10.30 pm
      With this clause, the disabled are still being deprived of that voice. The parents of disabled children, who should be allowed to speak out are being gagged. There is nothing worse than parents of a disabled child seeing that child beaten in the rat race. In life's rat race, disabled children suffer. No matter how much sympathy is expressed, no matter how many warm words are uttered or bromides offered, they suffer and fall behind. Disablement is exactly what it has been called. It is a handicap.
      The parents of disabled children want to speak out and help their children as much as, if not more than, other parents. This clause deprives them of that voice. I believe that the clause must be based on some misunderstanding. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that it is to be withdrawn. The question of principle is applicable to the clause. If the Minister accepts the principle adumbrated in our amendment he should withdraw the clause. There is no point in giving

      1417
      an assurance that it will be withdrawn at a later date.
      A principle is a principle. If public expenditure were involved I would still argue as a Labour Member, but public expenditure is not involved. The Minister should be able to say that although there are difficulties and problems the Government are prepared to deal with them and give parents the vital voice that they require.
      I beg the Secretary of State to think again. It is rumoured that we may have to go to a Division. I hope that the rumours are wrong. I hope that the Government will withdraw clause 9 and show that, whatever their faults, they are not prepared to gag the parents of disabled children when the education of their children is discussed.
      Mr. Hannam: I wish to follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who plays an important part in the affairs of the disabled and is chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group. It is through that group that this amendment has been tabled. Hon. Members have taken part in discussions prior to this debate with the Under Secretary of State, who received us with great understanding and sympathy. I should like to capitalise on that in my contribution.
      Usually, on Report, when amendments are tabled on behalf of the disabled, we find ourselves squeezed out at the end of the debate. It is unusual to find that we are opening the batting twice, in separate guillotined periods, with a better chance of debating the matter fully and giving everyone a chance to hear the Minister's reply.
      I find myself in some difficulty. I cannot believe that this fearful clause is intentional. The clause must be intentional, because it discriminates against the disabled and the handicapped. No financial implication is involved. The Government cannot, therefore, be taking a defensive posture because of pressure from the Treasury. The words of the clause stating that none of the much-welcomed provisions of clauses 6, 7 and 8 shall
      1418
      "have effect in relation to nursery schools, special schools or children in need of special educational treatment"
      strike a fierce blow at all those concerned with progress towards greater integration of disabled people. That is the main objective, and it is the objective stated by the Minister in the previous debate.
      The clause expressly withholds parental choice and information on parental preferences from parents whose children are to go to nursery schools or special schools, and from parents whose children are deemed to be in need of special educational treatment. I and other members of the All-Party Disablement Group, plus all the organisations representing the handicapped, see no reason for this, particularly when these provisions are very carefully hedged already with safeguards in the Bill.
      I was very pleased to hear, in the debate on clauses 2 and 5, that my hon. Friend is planning to bring forward proposals on the Warnock report possibly in the next parliamentary year. He will obviously want to deal with many of these aspects in that legislation, but that inevitably is some way off; in fact it may never come. This Bill is with us now, in the present, and it represents discrimination in its worst form against handicapped people because it widens the gap when we should be closing it in preparation for Warnock and the fuller integration of the disabled in our society.
      Clauses 6 to 8 provide for arrangements to be made for parents to express a preference for a particular school, and those responsible for admissions are required to comply with such a preference, except where to do so would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. There is a get-out for any local authority or local education authority. Another hedge is where it would be incompatible with admission arrangements agreed between the governors of an aided or special agreement school and a local education authority.
      Another hedge is where it would be incompatible with admission arrangements based upon selection by reference to ability or aptitude. That is in clause 6. There are provisions for appeals in clause 7 and schedule 2. Clause 8 provides for information to be published for each year in terms of admissions, parental

      1419
      preferences and appeals, and other information required by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Parents of handicapped children are no less anxious to exercise choice in respect of the schools to which their children go than are parents of non-disabled children.
      As hon. Members will know from constituency cases, parents of handicapped children often have to face very difficult arguments with local education authorities to secure what they believe is right for their children. They often have to fight, for example, to get their child into an ordinary local school, or into a special nursery school a year or so earlier than the non-handicapped child, or even into a special school specialising in a particular disability.
      If the clause is enacted the position of those parents will be weakened when all other parents' rights are being strengthened. The Government really cannot believe that to be right. I know that they agree in principle with the arguments that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members are putting forward on this amendment.
      It has been suggested that handicapped children's parents have been excluded from the provisions of clauses 6 to 8 because the needs of such children have to be carefully assessed and the provision that is required is often very specialised. Against this argument I would argue, first, that the expression of choice of a school for a handicapped child by the parents is in no way incompatible with careful assessment of the handicapped child's needs and the provision of what is required. There is no contradiction in agreeing that the pupils going to special schools have to be particularly assessed and still giving the parents the rights under the Bill.
      Secondly, I argue that the provisions required are often not at all specialised. Sometimes it is merely a question of physical access to the school buildings.
      Thirdly, in respect of many insubstantially handicapped children, I argue that the decisions about the right school for such children are not different in kind or degree from the decisions made in respect of a non-disabled child. The spectrum of disabilities of all kinds runs from the disabled at one end to the non-disabled at the other, and there is no
      1420
      clear dividing line between the two that could possibly justify treating the parents of handicapped children differently from the parents of non-handicapped children.
      We have little time tonight to debate the matter, but I strongly entreat the Government, and the Minister when he winds up, to make a concession to all hon. Members. It is an act of discrimination that we cannot possibly tolerate.
      Mr. Beith: It was in response to an amendment that I moved in Committee that the Minister said that we should look at this matter again on Report and that in the meantime we should see what the strength of feeling and attitudes were. He has now seen how strong the feeling is in all parts of the House. I am sure that he has received, as we have done, representations from the organisations dealing with the handicapped, which feel very bitter that they should have been treated in this way by a clause in the Bill.
      The decision where a handicapped or disabled child should go is one that has to be taken with a great deal of care, but that is no reason why the rights of parents of handicapped children should be undermined, either in relation to special schools or to those children who are simply in need of some special educational treatment. There are now strong feelings about this, and I do not believe that it would be right for the Bill to be left as it is while we wait for wider recommendations affecting the disabled.
      I hope that the Minister recognises the strong feelings that exist and that he will give way now instead of being forced to do so.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: The trouble about being too far down the line is that one has one's foxes successfully shot by other hon. Members. That has happened to me this evening. Therefore, my contribution can be short and necessarily sharp.
      All hon. Members have referred to the Warnock report. I should like to quote briefly from another section entitled "Dialogue with Parents". It states:
      "Parents of children with special needs require three principal forms of co-operative support—information, advice and practical help."
      Information is power, and information about schools is parent power. That is

      1421
      something of which we should all approve. However, without the amendment, a most important section of parents is in danger of being denied information on which to base important decisions about special schools for their handicapped children. That is something that we should not tolerate. I hope that that is not really intended by the Government.
      Many Conservative Members with a particular interest in the needs of the handicapped and the disabled cannot stand by and see the parents of these children relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Why should they not be treated like the parents of ordinary children? Why should they be denied the information, as the clause suggests? It can be argued that in the case of special schools there is little choice. That is regrettable, but it is no reason for a denial of parental rights, and certainly no reason why discretion in this matter should be left to the local authorities.
      The Tory Party believes in freedom of choice and information. Both are denied by the clause. That is why I commend amendment No. 1:23 to the House.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I shall speak briefly in order to give the Minister a chance to recant and to see the light. If he does not see the light now, I promise him that the other place will see it and that this debate will occur twice. On both occasions there will be attacks on the Government for not conceding a reasonable amendment.
      I should like to quote from a reply that the Minister gave me on this subject, in which he said:
      "I give the assurance that wherever possible we shall give maximum choice, not only to the parents of normal children but to the parents of handicapped children, to ensure that they have a say about the schools to which their children go."
      A quotation from Warnock clearly makes the case.
      "Parents almost always care for a child for a larger part of each day than any professional. They endure the disturbed nights and the disruption of social life which a handicapped child brings."
      To try to prevent the parent of a handicapped child from having a choice is quite disgraceful in this day and age. I know that some difficulties will emerge as a result of amendment No. 123 being
      1422
      carried, but those slight difficulties will be as nothing compared with the joy with which this success will be received by the handicapped. They have been denied this opportunity for far too long.
      For example, if a parent knows his or her child well, whether the child is mentally or physically handicapped or deaf or blind, the parent will know which of those handicaps requires greatest attention. If the child is to spend some time in a hospital school, the parent is able to advise where the child should go when he comes out. The parent knows best. I appeal to the Government not to delay any further.
      10.45 pm
      The last all-party Act that passed through the House was the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It passed through the House without a Division. That would not have been passed if we had been kept waiting. We were told to wait for the Amelia Harris report. On this occasion we have the Warnock report. There is one part of it that we can implement now, and I urge the Minister to do so.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to remind my hon. Friend about the difference in function between the expert adviser and the taker of decisions. Much of the Bill is about the right of parents to participate in the taking of decisions. That applies as much in cases of handicapped children as it does anywhere else.
      It is the function of educational psychologists and child psychiatrists to give expert advice. That does not, and ought not, to disenfranchise the parents of their responsibility and their participation in decisions that are made.
      Mr. David Crouch: I intervene at this stage—
      Dr. Boyson: Will my hon. Friend please make his point quickly?
      Mr. Crouch: I shall not be hurried when I am talking about the disabled. There is not an hon. Member in the House who is not concerned about disabled children. I am extremely concerned to add my voice to everything that has been said, because I have received so much representation about the need for

      1423
      parents to have a choice in the matter. I would be dismayed if my hon. Friend did not give way on this amendment.
      Dr. Boyson: This is the second debate that we have had on a similar topic this evening—the first on the question of the election of governors, and this, which is concerned with the application of clauses 6, 7 and 8. At the present time, because of clause 9, they do not apply to nursery schools, special schools or children in need of special educational treatment.
      On the question of the appeal system, raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), the distinction is that where a school normally recruits rising-fives, it will have the right to establish an appeals system where parents can appeal as though their children were joining that school at the age of 5, 11, or whatever.
      I appreciate that there is some danger of confusion on the matter. It was discussed for a long time in Committee. We considered whether it was appropriate to amend the Bill in another place to make clear the limit of the extent to which, in practice, these provisions will apply to the rising-fives. As the hon. Member for Bolton, West has raised the matter again tonight, we shall consider what can be done, as there could be some confusion in interpretation.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: We accept the Minister's explanation. The confusion is not to do with what he has already said; it arises because of the anomaly that he is giving rights to certain parents of 4year-olds and denying them to others. That is what needs to be considered again.
      Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that point. Quite honestly, we are considering the matter again. The clause makes a distinction between two sorts of parents as to the way in which they can appeal.
      The amendment has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who told the tale of the girl who waited a year before she gave an answer. In this case I trust that it is not such a long-term answer. I trust that with the blood that runs in the spring there will be
      1424
      a big flow. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass that information on to his friends outside the House. Similarly, I trust that on the question of what we can do about the extension of the rights of parents and of the information being given to parents with handicapped children, we do not need to wait for a year.
      As I have already said, my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement to the House before the Easter Recess so that we can move further on the matter. There are greater problems with the exercise of parental choice, and many hon. Members accept that. Some of these children are in special schools, some in ordinary schools, some in independent schools and some in hospital schools, and some receive home tuition. Not only education advice but medical advice has to be given in many cases.
      Having said all that, I believe that none of us differs on the principle that is involved. Parents of handicapped children should have as many rights as—if not more rights than—parents of normal children. It is merely a question of the right vehicle through which to achieve this. That is the only difference that exists between many of us this evening.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ashley) said, parents of handicapped children are more concerned than parents of normal children because they know that they must totally commit themselves to seeing that their children live their lives as advantageously as possible. We have to find the right vehicle through which to give them the choice of school and the right of appeal.
      We realise that there is deep feeling on this matter throughout the House, My right hon. and learned Friend expects to make a statement on the Warnock report before the Easter Recess. He is the president of the association for handicapped children in his constituency. We consider that it would not be right to use this Bill to further involve parents in the education of handicapped children.
      Mr. Hannam: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government's actions through this Bill are widening the gap between the parents of handicapped children and the parents of normal children? It is not a question of holding the

      1425
      line until future legislation comes through. This Bill will actually widen the gap.
      Dr. Boyson: I do not accept that. I know how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter feels about this, but the only reason why this clause was included was that we knew that we were moving towards doing something specific for handicapped children. If we were not in the process of doing that, clause 9 would not have been drafted as it has been drafted. We felt that it would be better to deal with handicapped children at a later time in a separate Bill.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I know that my hon. Friend does not lack compassion and that he and the Secretary of State are trying to do their best,—
      Mr. Ashley: It is a very important matter.
      Mr. Grant:—but if my hon. Friend is going to consider Warnock, why on earth does he not leave the parents of handicapped children in the same position as the parents of normal children?
      Dr. Boyson: The Bill was drafted with children in the ordinary State schools in mind, and to extend the choice of parents. Similarly, the work that we are doing on the Warnock report will be used to extend parental preference and the information available to them. If we insist that every school within the State sector should issue its own prospectus—a card identity kit about what the school is achieving—it would seem that similar provisions should be made for the issue of such a prospectus by special schools inside and outside the State sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter told me this week how parents often move around to find a school that offers what they want for their children. We accept completely that the parents of handicapped children would appreciate it if the provisions about the publication of information and effective parental involvement in schools could be extended to special schools. I assure the House that we shall take account of that in any projected Warnock legislation.
      We have used the Bill to extend parental choice. We insist on schools issuing information to parents so that when they make a choice they can make a wise choice.
      Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend seems to be lost for words. I think that he would argue black was white if he were given the opportunity. In this instance the Warnock report is incidental. We are talking about social justice.
      Dr. Boyson: In the light of the views that have been expressed, and bearing in mind the strength of feeling on this issue, we shall be prepared to reconsider our position before the Bill goes to another place if the amendment is withdrawn.
      I am not trying to browbeat anybody. I would be blind if I could not see the strength of feeling that exists. If the amendment is withdrawn, we shall be prepared to consider the matter before it goes to another place to ascertain what we can do to give the same opportunity for information and parental choice to the parents of handicapped children.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has acknowledged the strength of feeling in the House. However, I remind the House that the issue was discussed in Committee. The Minister was made well aware of the strength of feeling in the House and in organisations outside. It is not sufficient at this stage to defer a decision and to say that he will consider the matter once again. He has had a great deal of time to reconsider the issue. Many organisations have made representations. He has not taken notice of them, and it is extremely important that the House makes its views known.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I confirm what my hon Friend said. The Government do not desire to react against the interests of the parents of handicapped children.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Why not accept the amendment?
      Mr. Carlisle: I am advised that the issue is not as simple as it appears. Some of the provisions in the admission clauses would not happily fit special schools. My hon. Friend has said that in view of the clear expressions of opinion from both sides of the House—including those of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)—we are prepared to consider the matter again before the Bill goes to another place. We are prepared to do so. I ask my hon. Friends to accept that course.
      Mr. Hannam Mr. Hannam rose—
      Mr. Carlisle: I still believe that the Warnock report should be considered generally. If my hon. Friends think that it will help, I give the undertaking to reconsider the information clause and to do anything else that is possible before the Bill goes to another place.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given such assurances in the past. He had an opportunity to reconsider the matter before Report. These are not satisfactory responses. To
      enable the House to come to a decision on amendment No. 123, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 123, in page9, line 24, leave out form 'nursery schools' to end of line 25.—[Mr. Hannam.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 299.

      Division No. 175]

      AYES

      [11 pm

      Abse Leo

      Dubs, Alfred

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Adams, Allen

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kerr, Russell

      Allaun, Frank

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Alton, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Kinnock, Neil

      Anderson, Donald

      Eastham, Ken

      Lamble, David

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lamond, James

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      English, Michael

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ashton Joe

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ewing, Harry

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Faulds Andrew

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Beith, A.. J.

      Fell, Anthony

      Litherland, Robert

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Field, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Forrester, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bradley, Tom

      Foster, Derek

      McElhone, Frank

      Bray Dr Jeremy

      Foulkes, George

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Brown Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      McKelvey, William

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Freud, Clement

      Maclennan, Robert

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Buchan, Norman

      Garrett, W. E. (Walisend)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      George, Bruce

      McNally, Thomas

      Campbell, Ian

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ginsburg, David

      McWilliam, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Golding, John

      Magee, Bryan

      Cant, R. B.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Marks, Kenneth

      Carmichael, Neil

      Graham, Ted

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cartwright John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Maxton, John

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Coleman, Donald

      Hannam, John

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Colvin, Michael

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Meacher, Michael

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cook, Robin F.

      Haynes, Frank

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cowans, Harry

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Crowther, J. S.

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Cryer, Bob

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Home Robertson John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Homewood, William

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morton, George

      Dalyell, Tam

      Horam John

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Davidson, Arthur

      Howells, Geraint

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)

      Huckfield, Les

      Newens, Stanley

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Ogden, Eric

      Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Deakins, Eric

      Janner, Hon Greville

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dempsey, James

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dewar, Donald

      John, Brynmor

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Dixon Donald

      Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Dobson, Frank

      Johnston, Russell (Iverness)

      Park, George

      Dormand, Jack

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Parker, John

      Douglas, Dick

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Parry, Robert

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Pendry, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Penhaligon, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Silverman, Julius

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Prescott, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Weetch, Ken

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Snape, Peter

      Welsh, Michael

      Race, Reg

      Soley, Clive

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Spearing, Nigel

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Richardson, Jo

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Stallard, A.. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Wickenden, Keith

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Stoddart, David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George

      Stott, Roger

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Straw, Jack

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Roper, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee west)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Woodall, Alec

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Wright, Sheila

      Ryman, John

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Sever, John

      Tilley, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Hugh McCartney and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Joseph Dean.

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Ancram, Michael

      Corrie, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Arnold, Tom

      Costain, A.. P.

      Heyhoe, Barney

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Heddle, John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Critchley, Julian

      Henderson, Barry

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Crouch, David

      Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Hicks, Robert

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hill, James

      Banks, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dover, Denshore

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Bell, Sir Ronald

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hooson, Tom

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Hordern, Peter

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Durant, Tony

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Best, Keith

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eggar, Timothy

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Emery, Peter

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Blackburn, John

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Body, Richard

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Farr, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Bowden, Andrew

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Kaberry, sir Donald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Bright Graham

      Forman, Nigel

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Brinton Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Brittan, Leon

      Fox, Marcus

      Knox, David

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lamont, Norman

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Lang, Ian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Latham, Michael

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Lee, John

      Buck, Antony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Budgen, Nick

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Burden, F. A..

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Butcher, John

      Gorst, John

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Gow, Ian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Loveridge, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Gray, Hamish

      Luce, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Grieve, Percy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      McCusker, H.

      Channon, Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grist, Ian

      MacGregor, John

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      1430

      1431

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Stevens, Martin

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Patten, Geoffrey

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mattel, David

      Pawsey, James

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Major, John

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Stokes, John

      Marland, Paul

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Marlow, Tony

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Tapsell, peter

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Porter, George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mates, Michael

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Donald

      Mawby, Ray

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Raison, Timothy

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mellor, David

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Trippier, David

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Renton, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Viggers, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Wakeham, John

      Moate, Roger

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Molyneaux, James

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Monro, Hector

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sainsbury, Hon Timotny

      Walters, Dennis

      Moore, John

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Ward, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watson, John

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mudd, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Shersby, Michael

      Wheeler, John

      Myles, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Neale, Gerrard

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Raymond

      Needham, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Newton, Tony

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Spence, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Onslow, Cranley

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Sproat, Iain

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Squire, Robin

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Stainton, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. David Waddington and

      Parris, Matthew

      Stanley, John

      Mr. Peter Brooke.

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Steen, Anthony

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Questions on all Government amendments until the end of schedule 3—that is amendments Nos. 17 to 27, inclusive. Does any hon. Member wish to divide on any of those amendments?

    Clause 10

      DETERMINATION OF SCHOOL TO BE NAMED IN ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 10, line 12, after 'application', insert
      'mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is offered a place at a school at which the local education authority agree to provide education for him in response to the application mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

    Clause 11

      AMENDMENT OF ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 11, line 7, after 'application', insert
      1432
      'mentioned in paragraph (a) above or is offered a place at a school at which the local education authority agree to provide education for him in response to the application mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

    Clause 12

      ESTABLISHMENT, DISCONTINUANCE AND ALTERATION OF SCHOOLS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 11, line 37, leave out 'or'.
      No. 20, in page 11, line 40, at end insert
      'or
      (e) to cease to maintain a nursery school established by them or a former authority.'.
      No. 21, in page 12, line 1 after 'proposals', insert
      'shall be accompanied by a statement of the effect of subsection (3) below and'.
      No. 22, in page 12, line 33, leave out from 'State' to end of line 39 and insert—
      '(a) if he gives notice to that effect to the local education authority within two months after the submission to him of the published;

      1433
      or
      (b) if objections have been made as mentioned in subsection (3) above and all objections so made have not been withdrawn as mentioned in that subsection.'.
      No. 23, in page 12, line 45, leave out from 'State' to end of line 7 on page 13 and insert
      'the local education authority shall determine whether the proposals should be implemented and the authority shall make that determination not later than four months after the submission of the proposals to the Secretary of State.'.
      No. 24, in page 13, linel3, at end insert 'and'.
      No. 25, in page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).

    Clause 13

      ESTABLISHMENT AND ALTERATION OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 13, line 40, at end insert:
      'taking the reference to subsection (3) of that section as a reference to subsection (3) below'.
      No. 27, in page 14, line 6, after 'made', insert:
      'and the local education authority by whom the school is, or is to be, maintained'.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

    Clause 17

      ASSISTED PLACES AT INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
      Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 17, line 13, after 'whereby', insert:
      'with the consent of the local education authority in whose area the school is situated.'.
      You have gone to fast for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I can scarcely be blamed, because I have a charming conversation partner.
      We have come to the infamous clause 17. It refers to the assisted places scheme. The amendment is geared to the hope that the Government will relent at this late date, and will include consultation with the local education authorities as a prerequisite to the introduction of that scheme in any local authority area. One way to mitigate and rationalise the effect of the assisted places scheme is to include a requirement that local education authorities give their consent before any school participates in the scheme.
      1434
      That is necessary as a result of the loathing with which that scheme is regarded, not just by the educational trade unions, the Society of Education Officers, head teachers and just about every commentator on the scheme, journalistic or academic, but by some hon. Gentlemen who have in the past demonstrated their affection for and trust in the maintained system of education. In that respect, if in no other, they are at severe odds with their leadership. After considering the further arguments, and, perhaps, taking this opportunity to further display their views, I hope that those hon. Gentlemen will join us in the Lobby.
      11.15 pm
      The view is put forward by the Secretary of State that the assisted places scheme is not the wretched enemy of the maintained system that we have described, but a kind of educational Quasimodo. However misshapen and misbegotten the proposal, it is there to engage in acts of mercy and rescue the odd, inspired urchin, drag him out of the gutter and give him all the advantages, privileges and assistance of an education geared to academic ability. The possibility of that occurring is less than nil. I believe that in the whole series of amendments that we have tabled on local education authorities, selection and parental income, we shall conclusively demonstrate that.
      Since the Second Reading and the long hours in Committee spent considering this part of the Bill, the scheme has been effectively bisected. Even the Secretary of State now acknowledges that the prospect of recruiting 100,000 children to be beneficiaries—if that is the proper word—does not exist, and that the figure is more appropriately 50,000. We believe that the explanation is more likely to be found in the low rate of application than in the Secretary of State's seeing sense or the Cabinet, in its second round of cuts, recognising the need for not further offending the people of Britain by spending a ridiculous £55 million on that unwanted and unwarranted scheme.
      Local education authorities have, without equivocation, shown, at the very least, suspicion, and, at the most, repeated and merciless criticism of the scheme. The reason is obvious. They know that the children on whom schools depend and for whom schools provide—the

      1435
      brightest children, the academically most able—will be creamed off by the scheme in many areas of the country where there is an incidence of independent schools that will participate in the scheme.
      Local education authorities, by no means all of one political persuasion, are proud of their maintained schools. They recognise the need for further development of those schools. They also recognise that the most academically able pupils attract and retain able staff at those schools and act as an inspiration for their peers. It did not take Professor Rutter to demonstrate the importance of those children to the educational welfare of a school. Anyone acquainted with education has recognised that for a long period. The proposals are a direct threat to the continuity of that usefulness and of the advantage that those children derive from their schools.
      As the National Association of Head Teachers and other bodies have pointed out, the group that the Secretary of State is hoping to attract into the assisted places schools is the small percentage who can be identified as being academically most able—those who demonstrate that ability by getting several high grade passes at A-level.
      At a time of falling roll numbers and in areas where there is a high incidence of assisted places on offer, there is a possibility that the proportion of pupils from that highest academic ability range that will be taken out of the maintained sector and put into the assisted places schools will be so significant as dramatically to affect the quality of education provided and the character of the maintained schools from which those children come. I do not think that the statistical propositions of those directly interested in these matters have been seriously contested.
      The possibility exists that if the scheme were fully implemented, had it catered eventually for 100,000 of the highest academic ability children in this country they would have constituted about one-third of the children in the whole school system. The result would have been an enormous and greatly damaging loss to the maintained system and the communities relying on the schools within that system.
      1436
      We have come to expect that the Secretary of State will not be terribly disturbed by that distortion. He told the annual dinner of the Manchester grammar school on 23 January that the private school sector
      "provides the maintained sector with a standard of comparison of performance as well as having traditional excellence in various fields, from which the maintained sector could usefully draw."
      That has been interpreted correctly throughout the maintained system as a calculated insult and a desertion of duty by the man whose ultimate responsibility is for the maintained sector. He is supposed to be the guardian of its interests in the Cabinet. Because the overwhelming majority of children in this country attend schools in the maintained sector, he should at least be relied upon not to demoralise that sector by the use of such phrases and assessments of relative values.
      The Secretary of State is actually contriving to tell the maintained sector that it is second best; that the children attending schools in that sector and the teachers working within it are engaged in and dependent upon a second-rate system. We can put no other interpretation on those words. They must have been carefully chosen.
      If the Secretary of State for Wales wishes to examine a press release put out by the Department of Education and Science he will find much more in the same vein—that this provides the maintained sector with a standard of comparison of performance. It does not, and it must not. The maintained sector can judge for itself. It can be examined by Her Majesty's inspectors and be exposed to the view of the whole country—indeed, the whole world. It does not need to depend on or borrow its energy from comparisons with the private sector. It is not in competition with the private sector, although no doubt the Secretary of State would like it to be, through the assisted places scheme.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: Why not?
      Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State asks "Why not?" Does he really think that the education system of this country would benefit from a race for what he describes and defines as "excellence" between the private and maintained sectors? What child would be advantaged by that? How would teacher morale be raised? Who would benefit? No one at all. But

      1437
      it is apparent that the Secretary of State has espoused such ideas. That is rather unexpected. I thought that such ideas belonged to a darker and more sinister and backward section of the Conservative Party than the one from which he is supposed to have come.
      The Secretary of State appears to be infected by the company that he keeps. I am the last one to preach guilt by association, but when he talks about traditional excellence in various fields that the maintained sector should apparently seek to emulate, that is an insult to the maintained sector schools and to the system responsible for that sector.
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent, but let us consider what he is saying. Surely he accepts that some of the ex-direct grant schools had high academic standards. What on earth is wrong in saying that they provide a standard of comparison against which we can check the ability of the maintained sector? That is not an insult to the maintained sector.
      Mr. Spearing: It is.
      Mr. Carlisle: It is not. Alongside the maintained sector there is another, and the fact that there are two gives us the opportunity to check one against the other. That is all that I was saying, and it seems reasonable and sensible.
      Mr. Kinnock: In that case, I suppose that we should be grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not Secretary of State for Social Services, since on the basis of the sort of comparisons that he makes we would be talking about second-rate health sector treatment and second-rate operations and asking the public sector of medicine to compare itself in terms of excellence of treatment with the private sector.
      It is a damned cheek and an insult for the Secretary of State to talk about the superiority of the private sector. Our examination system is surely enough of a means of making a judgment on the academic performance of schools in whatever sector. Whether that system is an acceptable or wise way of judging the performance of individuals is another matter, but why should the Secretary of State seek, through the assisted places scheme or inane speeches like the one that he made in Manchester, to impose
      1438
      yet another criterion on a maintained sector that is consistently under attack and so seek to uproot the confidence in that sector?
      I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will either apologise for making that sort of attack or will make it even more publicly and deliberately, so that the people of this country can properly evaluate the sort of person who is responsible for the maintained sector of education.
      The assisted places scheme and all that goes with it is an insult to the maintained sector. The elementary presumption of the scheme is that there are schools that can do that which the maintained sector cannot do. I can acquit the ignoramuses on the Conservative Back Benches on the basis of their ignorance, but the Secretary of State cannot be acquitted, because he is as familiar as anyone with the inspectors' reports and the education statistics.
      The statistics demonstrate that for the most academically able children the maintained system provides at least as well as does any other system. Indeed, if there are any children who are not being as well served by the maintained sector as we should like, they are not the high fliers or the lowest performers but the children in between. That is the conclusion reached by several reports, including the reports of the Department's inspectors, produced at almost weekly intervals on all sorts of testing bases.
      The presumption in the assisted places scheme, that there is a haven or refuge for children of such high ability that they are not being served by the maintained system, is demonstrable nonsense.
      The vein running through the whole proposition is that "bought is best"—that in order for something to be excellent, admirable and superior, a price tag must be attached. I say, without sentimentality, that there is a truth held to be self-evident on the Opposition side and by some individual Conservative Members that the worth of an education system, a health system or any caring system, or system of inspiration in a modern State, is not demonstrated by the price tag but by the provision made.
      11.30 pm
      In order to hold to that, we have to disagree profoundly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and oppose by every means his assisted places scheme.

      1439
      We do not believe, and we shall not concede, nor shall we assist people into the idea of thinking, that there must be a label, a price tag, a purchase price, attached to something to give it real worth. Certainly, in the case of educational provision and opportunity it would be the vilest kind of attack on our system of education to teach parents and teachers, and pupils—because they recognise and understand these debates upon these matters—that unless people qualify for the purchase system of education they are somehow being betrayed, sold short or involved in a second-rate system.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. He will have to disprove the words that he uttered in Manchester, and he will have to wipe this clause out of the Bill if he seeks to demonstrate that that is not his attitude towards the maintained system.
      In their attitudes—we heard it today again in the debate on the new clause on nursery education, and we have heard it otherwise—there is a well-developed Tory talent for giving general praise to the publicly provided services and then either denying the means for those services to be operated effectively or importing or supporting an alternative system, which is held up as a model of excellence.
      In his approach to these matters, the right hon. and learned Gentleman reminds me greatly of the Arab sheikh who became converted to Catholicism and kept a mermaid for Fridays. Disraeli's phrase about organised hypocrisy is very true, even in 1980, a century or more after he uttered it. It is demonstrated yet again through the means of the assisted places scheme.
      We had extensive opportunity in Committee for giving evidence from various bodies—some of a political persuasion and some of absolutely no political persuasion—in opposition to this scheme. I do not want to prolong the proceedings, because I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the Hosue wish to speak on this matter, and some of them have not had a previous opportunity to do so. However, there is one question that I want to raise with the Minister about his conduct of the assisted places scheme.
      1440
      When the Department sent out the circular letter on 6 December to the Governing bodies of direct grant grammar schools and the proprietors of independent schools and sent a covering note to the chief education officers of the local education authorities, the Minister said specifically in that letter that
      "It would be appreciated if the form"
      —that is, the form demonstrating interest in participating the scheme—
      "could be returned quickly, and in any case, not later than 31 January 1980."
      In the first week of February we were told by the Under-Secretary that the forms were still coming in. I presume that the forms are still coming in. We would be interested to hear how many additions there have been to the 371 that had arrived by the first week in February, and how long the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to go on extending the closing date.
      I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman were organising the football pools. because that would mean that we would all be winners. We could post our coupons on the Monday after the Saturday on which the games took place. It was said to be not later than 31 January. We are already in the middle of February and there is no sign of the guillotine being slammed down on the assisted places scheme in the way in which it has been slammed down on the House of Commons.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and his hon. Friends, throughout the whole of the debates on the Bill have applauded the idea of giving more and more authority, discretion and judgment to local education authorities. They say that that is a central theme of Tory education policy, of local government policy and of the Bill. There are various eccentricities to that theme, as we have seen demonstrated in other debates in the House.
      On this occasion, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confidence in the assisted places scheme, if he believes that it is a token of excellence and a model of inspiration that provides for poor children—I note that he has stopped using that phrase now—or less affluent children with the opportunity to gain an academic education—though we have yet to hear a definition of what he means by

      1441
      "academic"—the least he can do is to bring together his two principles of pride in the private sector of education and of confidence in the judgment of the local education authorities and insert at the beginning of clause 17 the words in our amendment. By marrying those two principles, at least he will ensure that the provision of assisted places does not distort, disrupt or cream off the talent from the maintained sector of education where it is well served and continues to be needed.
      Mr. Robert Hicks: My contribution to the debate will be short. It was not an easy decision for me, on Second Reading, to withdraw my support from the Government. I did so for two reasons. First, I felt apprehensive about the whole question of school transport and, secondly, I am opposed to the introduction of this concept of assisted school places at this time.
      No one in 1975 voted with more conviction and enthusiasm than I did when we opposed the decision of the then Labour Government to phase out the direct-grant schools, but, as often happens, a party in opposition tends to make instant judgments, which take no account of the circumstances that may exist when that party returns to political office.
      I have three basic objections to the introduction of this scheme. First, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said, it makes an assumption that schools in the private sector have something to offer that schools in the maintained sector have not. The great majority of children of secondary school age attend schools in the maintained sector. I believe that all Governments, whether they be of the Left or of the Right have an obligation to place the maximum resources available to the Department of Education and Science into the maintained sector.
      I am a product of a grammar school. My daughter attends the local comprehensive school in Liskeard. Like the majority of parents—indeed, all parents—of children who attend that comprehensive school, I want it to offer the best education to our children. Therefore, even if we accept the assumption that schools in the private sector can offer something
      1442
      that schools in the maintained sector cannot, I object to the creaming-off process.
      I do not think that my area will be able to take advantage of the scheme, because there is no private sector school within daily travelling distance. But that is irrelevant to my basic argument. I am doubtful about a situation that assumes that because some schools are in the private sector they can offer greater facilities and greater opportunities for more academically gifted children. I believe that we on the Government Benches, particularly, have an obligation, at a time when savings are being made in the overall level of public expenditure—the Department of Education and Science is sadly not exempt—to be seen putting as well as wishing, all available resources into the maintained sector.
      I have the greatest respect for my right hon. and learned Friend, but it is politically unwise at this time to be carrying out this measure. We are making savings and attracting a certain amount of political unpopularity while pumping in money, albeit indirectly, through the parents, into the private sector. I recall that the Conservative Government in 1971 put through the Education (Milk) Act, involving the abolition of school milk. The savings at that time were £9 million. Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, it was not worth the political "aggro" and the political flak that we suffered as a consequence of going through with that measure.
      I must put on record my view. I am opposed to the introduction of this scheme at this time. It is politically misguided. Even at this late hour, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to reconsider their attitude in respect of the two clauses dealing with the assisted school places scheme. I believe that it does not matter whether the figure is £55 million, over the full period, or half that figure. It is totally wrong that a party that believes in providing maximum opportunity especially within the maintained sector, should be seen to be going directly against that trend in the current economic climate. It is also wrong educationally.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I shall speak only briefly because I understand that there are Conservative Members who

      1443
      wish to intervene. The speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is, I believe, the authentic voice of the Conservative Party—far more so than the measure brought forward by the Front Bench.
      When the Second Reading of this Bill takes place in the other place, where there are five pre-1964 Secretaries of State and Ministers of Education from the Conservative Party, that fact will be brought home to the Government. The tone of the debate will be much more in tune with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bodmin than with the arguments that we have heard from the Government Front Bench.
      By introducing the assisted places scheme, the Government are going against the whole educational, legislative tradition that has existed in this country since the 1870 Act when compulsory education was introduced. Clause 1(1) of the Education Act 1944 enjoins, as a duty, on the Secretary of State
      "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales…and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
      11.45 pm
      When our predecessors in 1944 insisted that it was the Minister's duty to introduce the national policy they meant just that—the national policy by local education authorities under his control and direction. On every single previous occasion when independent schools have been funded with public money, it has been for one purpose and one purpose only—to fill in gaps in local provision, which local authorities have not been able to fill with their own resources, and when local authorities have themselves requested that independent schools should be used for this purpose.
      Every report since this question has been considered, beginning with the interim report of the Fleming committee in 1942, has made it absolutely clear that independent schools, funded with any sort of public funds at all, should be used only when local authorities request that that facility should be made available because, usually temporarily, their own facilities are not sufficient.
      For the first time the Secretary of State is turning the whole proposition on
      1444
      its head. For the first time he is completely and blatantly eroding the basic principle of the 1944 Act, that where a school is grant-aided with public funds, fee paying in that school should be illegal. That is what the 1944 Act stated. Admittedly, the direct grant system, because the Fleming committee could not agree, was temporarily removed from that system, but that was the principle of the 1944 Act. The further principle was that if independent schools were to be used to supplement county and voluntary schools, the only conditions under which they could be used were those in which local provision was not sufficient.
      We have not the full details of the system under which the Secretary of State is to use the provision, but we know that the assisted places scheme is unique in education finance. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, every other penny that goes into education has to be funded through the rate support grant so that local authorities can use it. This is the only feature of the school system where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking powers, as it were, to override local wishes.
      So far from using the old principle that local authorities should, as it were, go to the Minister and request help, the Minister has threatened to use this principle actually to penalise local authorities. Whereas a local authority had facilities, under the freedom that was given to it in the Education (No. 1) Act, to plan its system, to abolish the 11-plus and to make a natural progression from primary to secondary school, the threat that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using, in places such as Sheffield and London, is to reimpose an 11-plus system on those cities and completely distort not only the secondary education but the primary education.
      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Would I be right in understanding, from what the hon. Gentleman is saying—I should be interested also to hear the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on this—that if the assisted places scheme were to include a provision whereby local education authorities had a voice in whether such a place were to be given, the hon. Gentleman would regard that—as do some of its present opponents, such as the headmaster of Westminster School—as being a useful bridge between the

      1445
      private and the maintained sector, and would support the scheme?
      Mr. Price: I would not go that far. If the local authorities that are charged with the responsibility of organising education in their areas have the right to be consulted—which they do not have under the Bill—and have the right, as laid down in the amendment, of saying "No, we prefer not to have assisted places schools in our area, whatever happens in other areas", it would go a long way towards mitigating the evil effects of the scheme.
      I do not wish to pursue that matter further, as I know that the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and others wish to intervene. If the Secretary of State insists on putting the assisted places scheme forward as penal sanction against local education authorities that wish, with the full consent of their electorate, to run a comprehensive scheme without an 11-plus, he will make political problems for himself over the next few years of which he knows not. It is not my duty to warn him of that; it is the duty of those behind him. He is making not only an appalling administrative mistake, going against the whole historical tradition of the development of education in this country, but the worst political mistake ever made by the Conservative Party.
      Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I have never before followed an hon. Member who has encouraged you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that I may make a speech that supports some of the views that he has expressed.
      I do not suppose that any authorities that are opposed in principle to their ablest children being taken away from their comprehensive schools are any more comforted than I am by the half-abandonment of the scheme that we have seen over the past few days. My objection to the scheme is not only that ablest children would be taken away, but that in many cases it would take away the most concerned families, who have a great part to play in the schools that their children attend.
      In the speeches from the Treasury Bench before the scheme was truncated I sensed a feeling that it could be explained by saying that it was a modest proposal of
      1446
      which too much notice should not be taken. That is entirely wrong. It is a matter of principle. It makes no difference to me whether we spend £55 million or £25 million. Indeed, £1 million would be too much. It is wrong in principle.
      Over the past week or so I have met no less enthusiasm to explain that it is now an even more modest scheme. It appears rather like the Victorian parlour maid who explained away the arrival of her illegitimate child by saying "It is only little". That is not an adequate reason for us to ignore what is a matter of considerable principle.
      I turn to one or two technical matters before I come to the broader issues. Local authorities must be deeply interested in first, the argument that the scheme would not cost them very much and would not take anything away from the maintained system. That argument has been put forward on two bases. One argument—which I find great difficulty in understanding—is that, somehow, money that is used for private purposes is not money that is taken away from the maintained schools. In my book, money that is available to the Department of Education and Science is available for education.
      The second argument is even less reputable, namely, that all that we are doing is to spend about the same amount on the assisted places scheme as we spend to educate a child in the maintained system. That is economic nonsense. The first child in any comprehensive school will probably cost £1 million. The meridian child certainly costs £500 to £600. The marginal child—and there can be no more marginal child than the one that is being bought out—costs virtually nothing. It costs the gas and the Bunsen-burner, a few extra books and perhaps another desk.
      On the other hand, and conversely, the child who is sent to the private school is equally marginal—otherwise we would not have had the scheme—as is the cost to the private school. It has to provide little else than the extra books and the place. Therefore, the true cost of this scheme is almost every penny in every pound that is spent, and it is wrong to pretend otherwise.
      The difficulty is that this is public money being used for private purposes. I should have thought that many of my

      1447
      hon. Friends would pause before enthusiastically supporting that proposition. Of course, there are circumstances in which this is perfectly proper, such as extreme talent in music. There are plenty of circumstances in which this scheme can be used. But the use of money in order to provide one of the prime duties of the Department of State seems to me to be unacceptable.
      Mr. R. B. Cant: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take courage from the fact that on Staffordshire county council, of which I am a member, one of the toughest Tory operators, who is chairman of the education committee, has said publicly that he is totally opposed to this scheme? If the Government have £50 million to spare, he can apply that quite successfully to the development of micro-electronics education, or anything else in the public sector.
      Mr. Miscampbell: I need no encouragement. Blackpool went comprehensive with an overwhelming Tory majority and I defy anyone to show that we have attained any fewer A-levels than anyone else, or that there has been any less success. The fact is that throughout the town, from one end of the constituencies to the other, every headmaster and headmistress in the maintained sector is totally opposed to what we are doing. We should pay attention to what has been said.
      I want to turn for a moment to what may happen if the scheme is terminated, because I think that it has an educational as well as a political overtone. Let us consider who will go into the scheme. We all read in the newspapers last week about what will happen at the top end of the scale. Of course, those people will get only £100 or so, although why they should is a little difficult to understand. A family with two children and an income of £8,000 a year, as well as a modest mortgage, will be in the £10,000 bracket [Interruption.] Well, a £10,000 mortgage will cost about £1,500 a year. They are very high brackets.
      The whole House can be indebted to the Department for its identification in this century of those who in the last century were soon to be people who were hard-up but who had done something to help themselves, and who were identified by the Victorian philanthropists as
      1448
      deserving causes. That having been said, the real bulk of the money will go to those at the bottom end of the scale.
      12 midnight
      I shall not go into the arguments about how much in reality those receiving grant will have to pay, but we must face the fact that we have an Opposition who have declared that they will terminate the scheme at the end of the educational year in which they achieve power.
      I think that that is disgraceful. Educationally, the only respectable thing to do would be to phase it out. But one has to face reality, and that is not what we are arguing about at present. Lamentable though it is, there may well be an opportunity for the Opposition to do that.
      If that happens—and one would need to be a believer in Henry Ford's view that all history was bunk to say that it never will—what will happen to these children? Will the schools that take them on now have to put them out, and will they have a disrupted education? Perhaps the Minister can help me here. When these schools volunteered to take these children, did we ask whether they would keep them if, when they had20 or 30 of them in the school, it meant that it would cost the school £30,000 to finish off their education?
      I want to turn for a moment to the attitude of local education authorities. They are entitled to resent being told in the Bill that they have no say in this scheme when we as a party say, strongly and persistently, that it is the right of LEAs to choose the kind of education that they want for their districts. That is bound to cause resentment, and it has.
      Above all, what the LEAs have a right to be concerned about is the attitude—as hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)—that we are displaying towards the maintained system. Before the change we thought that the problem of providing a more academic education had been identified. As many as 100,000 children, according to the Department, were thought worthy of an independent chance. Now, at a stroke, that number is reduced to 50,000. I would like to know whether the Minister has any proposal for dealing with the 50,000 that have been removed overnight. If there is a scheme within the maintained

      1449
      system to give these children a chance by providing assisted places there will be no opposition from me, indeed, the Minister will have my support. But if there is such a scheme, and if it is right for the 50,000 that have been removed over the last fortnight to be given a chance, why is it not right for the whole 100,000?
      I do not think that anyone can be other than perturbed at the wording and attitude disclosed by the clause. I do not disagree with the argument that there may be an advantage in going to several private schools, but that is not the question. If that is the position it is the first duty of the Government and the Department to make sure that it is changed as quickly as possible. It is not a solution increasingly to buy our way out of it over the years.
      We are embarking on a policy of despair. We are saying that we shall not be able to match the best. It is an option for the second-rate. The clause is no more than a vote of no confidence in the maintained system. I have no intention of casting such a vote.
      Mr. Beith: For not the first time in today's proceedings the most telling criticisms of what the Government propose to do have come from the Conservative Benches. We have heard two speeches that have been not only courageous but thorough and effective in their treatment of the Government's proposals. The content of those two speeches reflects to a considerable degree a view that I have found among leaders of education authorities in many parts of the country, including many Conservatives. That is true of many Conservatives in the county in which my constituency is contained, and it is true of the areas represented by those on the Conservative Benches who have so courageously criticised the Government. It is true of many areas.
      The view that has seized the Government and led them to embark on the scheme is not regarded with much enthusiasm by some of their representatives in local government, who have committed their activity to the maintenance of as good a State education system as they can possibly produce. Working for many years on local education authorities enables those of a different political persuasion to share a commitment to achieve that objective. Many
      1450
      Conservatives have committed themselves to it, as well as Liberals and Socialists. There are those of all political persuasions in local government who are amazed by what the Government propose to do.
      At a time when local government is being told that it cannot have money to spend on basic necessities and on improving its service, it is extraordinary that money can mysteriously be found to invest in the Government's scheme. We must assume that the Government have made the decision to lower the standard of the public sector and to buy out a small number of people upon whom the country will depend in future to educate them in the private sector. That assumption is as offensive to Conservative local government leaders as it is to Liberals and Socialists.
      It is only right that local education authority leaders should be consulted on the practical application of the scheme in their areas. They are faced with extraordinary difficulties because of the way in which the Government have conceived the scheme. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State speak with enthusiasm of the replies that they have received to their circular from schools that wish to take part in the scheme. They do not tell us how many of the schools from which they have received replies are second-rate, third-rate and even fourth-rate. They talk as if every application has been received from a school that may be regarded as the pinnacle of the private education pyramid. Local education authorities that are trying hard to better the standards that exist in some quarters of the public sector are, not surprisingly, offended by the suggestion that their schools are inferior to some of the schools that are operating in the private sector.
      Some Conservative Members who want to go along with the scheme may not realise that the Government do not propose that there should be any initial inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of the schools to which public finance is to be devoted. It is merely upon a reply to a form that the Minister will assess whether it is the sort of school to which children of the highest academic standard must be diverted from the maintained education system. It is amazing that they should accept with any willingness the diverting of public funds to parts of

      1451
      the private education sector which have standards far below those of many parts of the State education system.
      Some of the speeches of Ministers have suggested that the scheme is a device to take a few children into the best and most expensive schools—the ones with the greatest academic prestige. There is nothing in the arrangements that they have made so far to conduct the scheme that suggests that even that objective can be met. The absence of any provisions for inspection before schools are approved is bound to underline that feeling.
      The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) referred to the high income bracket which would still enable people to get some financial benefit from the scheme. Local education authority leaders are bound to be puzzled when the Government tell them that the only people that they need to help with the cost of school meals and school transport are those who are in receipt of family income supplement and supplementary benefit.
      If a man earns £66 or £67 a week the Government do not believe it necessary for the local education authority to give him any assistance. However, people with income levels far above that are thought of as appropriate for assistance by central Government not only with school meals and transport but with school fees, once their children are plucked out of the State system and sent to the private education system.
      Those few children will be entitled to assistance with the additional cost of uniforms and out-of-school activities. There will be all kinds of assistance for parents with incomes far higher than those for whom basic assistance with schools meals and transport are denied under other provisions of this Bill.
      Mr. Kinnock: The information that we have so far is that remission will be against the school fees and that no provision will be made for expenses other than the fees. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) might care to reflect whether the remissions that have been advertised in the Press are the sums that families, whatever their incomes, will be asked to meet—or will there be hundreds of pounds on top of
      1452
      that to help children get to a school and stay there conforming to the requirements of school uniforms and the rest?
      Mr. Beith: It is inevitable that unless substantial provision over and above the remissions is made—and I understood from discussion in Committee that the Government wanted to do this—children who take part in the assisted places scheme may find themselves at a great disadvantage compared to other children at the same school, particularly if they go to a school at which the remainder of the children come from rich families.
      If, however, the Government find ways of meeting those additional costs, those few children will be at a great advantage compared to children whose parents have lower incomes and who are not even provided with basic help with meals and transport at State schools. Either way the local education authority has a deep and genuine interest in the anomalies thereby created.
      I think that the Government have now had time to discover what an unenthusiastic reception the assisted places scheme has received from their friends and supporters, let alone from their opponents. I am totally depressed by the inability of the Government Front Bench to recognise that we are engaged in a scheme that could do profound damage to the State education system. They give no other impression than that they regard that system as second best—one that is bound to decline and from which they must now rescue a very small number of children.
      Mr. John Page: I leap to my feet to prevent the Secretary of State being bullied by a lot of toughs from different parts of the playground. I thought that the speeches in this debate were to be of a high intellectual level. They have not been. Hon. Members have been throwing verbal stones at someone they seem to think cannot defend himself, but they underestimate the qualities of my right hon. and learned Friend.
      I listened to all the speeches tonight except when I was having a short snooze during the opening speech, and as far as I recall parental choice and the choice of the children were never mentioned by one spokesman opposing or supporting the amendment. Parental choice and child

      1453
      choice figured in the Tory Party manifesto and I am delighted to see that choice provided for in the Bill.
      The people of Harrow and Middlesex, especially those who are not so well off, look forward to having the opportunity of obtaining places in the private schools that have traditionally been used by the children of Harrow and elsewhere in the past 100 years. Long may it remain so.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Spearing: First, I commend the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) on the high intellectual calibre of his speech. Coming from Harrow, it is appropriate that he should be an apologist for the private sector. Of course, Harrow school was originally a charitable foundation, but, under a most unfortunate Act of this House, it changed its trustees so that it did not deal with the poor of Harrow but with the elite of the aristocracy. In order to do that, the lower school of John Lyon was founded to act in lieu.
      Mr. Kinnock: As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is in the privileged position of following the intellectual hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), I wonder whether he will inquire, on matters of intellectual content of choice which the hon. Gentleman raised about the schools desired by parents, what is the hon. Gentleman's view of the proposed closure of a sixth form college in Harrow? So far as the House knows, the hon. Gentleman has remained silent on that matter.
      Mr. Spearing: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
      Mr. John Page: I am desperately sad that the reading of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) does not cover the Harrow Observer and Gazette as it should. Week after week, my speeches demanding production of the facts are reported and I am sorry that before the hon. Member for Bedwellty cast the stones he did not fully eat the plums.
      Mr. Spearing: It seems that the local education authority of Harrow is in some difficulty. I dare not hazard its political complexion, but I suggest that it might wish to be consulted by the Secretary of State or a Minister about the possibility
      1454
      of assisted places being given. I doubt whether that would be at Harrow school but it might take place at one or two lesser-known institutions.
      I believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have drawn to his attention certain matters that may have escaped him. In his opening speech he spoke broadly about the maintained sector and the real public sector of education. He called it the independent sector, but I shall hereafter call it the private sector. He may be interested to know that in Committee I sought to demonstrate that the "pukka" private sector—he will know what I mean; I do not mean the little private school around the corner—has, at a stretch, 1·3 per cent. of all secondary pupils in England and Wales. Even if that is doubled, to a generous 2·6 per cent., about 97·4 per cent. of secondary school pupils in England and Wales are in the maintained sector—the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Even if the figure were 95 per cent., the proportions are almost out of the imagination of those hon. Members who leap to the conclusions that the only educational quality against which we measure all the rest is in the private sector.
      I do not deny that the private sector sometimes develops proposals that might be worth adopting or modifying in the public sector. That has happened over the years and it is happening the other way round, nowadays. The contributions in the past of Dr. Arnold and Headmaster Thring may have been educationally advantageous but that does not mean that the nineteenth century ascendancy of those schools should follow into the middle and later part of the twentieth century. Since the Education Act 1944 we have had a universal national system of secondary education. It came rather late in the day, but we have certainly got it.
      In supporting the clause, the hon. Gentleman is pretending that anything that is not outside the pukka private sector is somehow ersatz, or second-rate. That demeans his position. Many Opposition Members as well as many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supporters in the country, believe that that is what he is doing.
      Conservative Members should clearly understand the scheme before they vote. Not many of these places will go to the

      1455
      "top 20". During the past few months we have been regaled by television programmes giving sidelights on Westminster, as well as a long-running saga on Radley. We learned in Committee that such schools are above the norm that the Minister is likely to set. Even if those schools were interested in offering places, such places would be unlikely to be selected under the scheme.
      The Minister went out of his way to suggest that the bulk of pupils in the assisted sector would go to schools that were previously direct grant schools. Many of those pupils will be day pupils. That is the Minister's plan. It is a far cry from the Radley—Eton—Winchester image that the press and perhaps the Secretary of State have in mind.
      As for boarding, the Minister did not give much of a reply during the Committee stage. He must come clean. The fees to be paid relate entirely to tuition. The Minister agrees. There will be places at boarding schools, but will those schools be topped up by local authorities? In Committee, the Minister said "Yes". The hon. Member for Harrow, West should reflect that it is a matter not of parental choice but of public money for private education. It is being done in anew way. Will he support a clause whereby additional moneys may be paid by the taxpayers and ratepayers of Harrow, in order to provide boarding education for some pupils in that borough?
      Is the hon. Member for Harrow, West prepared to see some schools recruiting such pupils for the good of the school rather than for the good of the pupil? There will be a scramble for brains. We all know that there is competition within the private education sector. There is competition for Oxbridge entry and for A-level statistics. There is a market place. It is done in a gentlemanly way, behind closed doors. None the less, it exists. What is to prevent second-or third-rate private schools from muscling in on the scheme? They say that they will get bright boys from Harrow, and so on. If such pupils have to travel by train, they may get help towards the cost of that transport. We do not know. Such schools wish to improve their statistical academic performance.
      In Committee, the Minister told us that he would oblige every maintained school
      1456
      to publish its examination results. Will there be a league of educational quality that is directly related to statistical examination results? I hope not. If such a league were to exist, schools would be able to demonstrate an apparently superior quality. The Secretary of State has not understood the difference between educational attainment that can be judged, perhaps, from public examination results, and innate educational quality. I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands the difference. If he did so he would not have made the speech that he did at the beginning of the debate.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I did not open the debate.
      Mr. Spearing: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I meant to say in intervening.
      The task of a schoolteacher or headmaster in dealing with pupils of all ranges of ability is harder and more exacting than that of a teacher in a selective school. Teachers in the private sector who are best known—those who write in the evening papers and appear on television—are guarded from most of the professional problems of the majority. They are protected by selection from having to deal with the commonest and most daunting tasks of professional educators. If the Secretary of State does not believe me, he has only to ask his Under-Secretary, who is sitting next to him. The Gentleman knows that that is true.
      In producing the scheme, the Secretary of State is, in effect, harking back to the nineteenth century and producing a Poor Law complex—the idea that those who can afford it or who win scholarships can attain something genuine, but the remainder must make do with second-best. It is not surprising that he thinks that. In his county of Cheshire fewer than 2,500 non-handicapped pupils are sent to independent schools. In Trafford, not very far away, the number is 1,046. That education authority has rigid selection.
      In its concept and assumptions, the scheme suggests that we do not have a national system but a nineteenth or early twentieth century system of rationed education—that real education is retained for the lucky 3 per cent., 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. The deserving poor can have access to that education but the remainder

      1457
      must take second-best. We reject that assumption and hope that the House will reject it by supporting the amendment.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested that I had spoken at the beginning of the debate, and criticised my speech before I made it. I hope that he will now do me the kindness of listening to my reply and not discount that which I have not said before I have the opportunity to say it.
      The hon. Member asked about boarding school places. I thought that we had made it clear that the assisted places scheme would not extend to boarding fees and would extend only to any part of the fee related to tuition in a boarding school. We also made it clear that schools would be able to offer assisted places to boarding pupils only where that was provided for in the participation agreement. Few, if any, places are likely to be offered in that way.
      Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a specific clause in the Bill allows local education authorities to top up at will? That was admitted in Committee. Will he admit it now?
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept the phrase "at will". The clause allows for payment of the tuition element of boarding fees, if those fees are being paid from some other source. It would occur only if an arrangement was made between the Government and the individual school within the participation agreement to allow for those places.
      12.30 am
      I come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). At the beginning of that speech the hon. Member was at his most moderate and most seductive. He said that this was just a little amendment. All he was asking was that we should include consultations with local education authorities about the running of assisted places schools. If that were all that the amendment intended I would be happy to say at once that I accepted it.
      In the letter that we sent to chief education officers on 6 December last year we made it clear that local education authorities would be notified of provisional responses to the letter of invitation
      1458
      from non-maintained schools in their localities and would be given an opportunity to make known to the Secretary of State their views about the operation of the scheme in their area if they wished to do so. The hon. Member for Bedwellty claimed that all he wanted was consultation, but it is already quite clear that we would consult.
      The hon. Member knows full well that his "mild" amendment, which supposedly goes no further than consultation, is, in fact, aimed at totally frustrating and killing the assisted places scheme. It is clear that the debate that has developed tonight is about the principle behind the assisted places scheme.
      The amendment would give the right of veto to any local education authority. It would enable it to say to any school that wished to take part in the scheme "We say that the independent schools in our area shall not participate". The local education authority would have the power to tell parents in the area who might wish to take part that they could not do so, for purely doctrinaire reasons. In other words, the hon. Member would give the right, at the diktat of local education authorities, to overrule the will of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Christopher Price Mr. Christopher Price rose—
      Mr. Carlisle: No, I shall not give way at the moment. If this amendment were accepted the hon. Member for Bedwellty would storm the country telling local authorities that they should refuse to take part in the scheme. Let us take the case of Manchester.—[HON MEMBERS: "Why not Blackpool?"]—I shall come to Blackpool in a moment. I shall have certain things to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell)—in the politest and kindest way, of course.
      Just as the Manchester education authority has attempted to block the scheme put up by the Greater Manchester council to give financial assistance to those attending schools such as Manchester grammer, so the hon. Member for Bedwellty would wish to give power to the education authority to say that despite the fact that the scheme had been approved by Parliament, the education authority, because of its Socialist principles, should have the right to prevent

      1459
      a school of the calibre of Manchester grammar from taking part.
      Therefore, the hon. Member would perpetuate a view that I find difficult to understand—a view that is constantly put forward by Labour Ministers, namely, that the high academic education that exists in many of these schools should be for ever limited to those who can afford to pay the fees, rather than made available to those whose children might benefit from it.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the counterpart of the dictation that he is talking about is that he will allow non-elected governors of a school such as Manchester grammar school to dictate to the primary schools in the city that they should re-institute an 11-plus exam that they have got rid of? Is he saying that self-perpetuating, non-elected governing bodies should be given greater weight in their ability to dictate such matters than the democratically elected representatives of the people?
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that I am giving to the governors of Manchester grammar school the means to dictate to the primary schools in Manchester the type of curriculum that they should follow. I am providing the opportunity for parents in Manchester to send their children to Manchester grammar school, if they wish, on the basis not only of the size of the parents' purse but on the ability of the children.
      The hon. Member for Bedwellty took me to task for the speech that I made in Manchester recently, and he took exception to the fact that I said that one of the advantages of an independent sector of education was that it provided a standard of comparison of performance against which the State sector could be judged. I cannot understand what objection the hon. Gentleman can have to the use of that phrase.
      Let me put it the other way round. The existence of the State sector provides a standard of comparison of performance against which the independent sector can be judged.
      Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that.
      Mr. Carlisle: The point is simple. If the hon. Member for Bedwellty examines
      1460
      the context of my speech he will see that the point was clear. I was saying that there were certain fundamental arguments in favour of having an independent sector of education.
      One reason that I gave was the freedom of choice for parents to decide to educate their children and spend their money as they wish. The second reason that I mentioned was that the existence alongside the State sector of an independent sector provided a standard of comparison of performance against which the State sector would be judged. I find nothing discreditable to the State sector in that statement, and I do not intend to withdraw it.
      I believe that my third reason was that the existence of a non-State-maintained sector prevented the possible future danger of too great a State intervention in our education system.
      Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's third point was that the private system was so good because it was a demonstration of parental interest. In one speech, the Secretary of State defaced liberty by putting a price tag on it, undermined confidence in the maintained sector and taught parents that unless they paid they were somehow not meeting their obligations.
      Mr. Carlisle: That is a gross exaggeration of my modest speech. I will look again at the speech, but I believe that I said that one of the important aspects of the success of a school was parental involvement, which is what a number of clauses in the Bill are about.
      If parental interest leads to their involvement and therefore to interest in the schools and improvements in the standard of education it is something that the House ought to applaud.
      I want, therefore, to leave the arguments of the hon. Member for Bedwellty—except to say that concerning the circular letter that we put out, certain replies, as I shall show shortly, are still coming in.
      I repeat that the principle behind the assisted places scheme is that it should be complementary to the State scheme, to use the advantages that exist in certain of the independent schools to provide opportunity for individual children, which I do not believe can necessarily be adequately met in the schools in the area.

      1461
      The hon. Gentleman said that in proposing this argument—and I look back at his speeches—I was somehow slurring the State sector, that I was saying that this provision could not be made within the State sector. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the party that damaged the State sector was the party that withdrew the direct grant schools, which were then a part, basically, of the State sector. It was the Labour Government who, withdrawing the direct grant system, sent 123 of those direct grant schools into being independent schools and withdrew the facilities that up to that moment had been available to children in the maintained sector.
      Mr. Christopher Price: About 60 direct grant schools came in.
      Mr. Carlisle:The Catholic ones did. All that we are basically trying to do by this scheme is to restore the opportunities that existed at the direct grant schools to children in those areas.
      Mr. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made a very important point. He talked about the need to make special provision for children in certain areas, all of which implies that he will be making some choice, when he chooses which schools can take part in the scheme, as to which parts of the country have some deficiency in the State education system. Will he really be doing that? Will he confine it to certain direct grant schools? If so, will be he consulting the local authorities of those areas and others in order to decide whether they are really the places which have these alleged deficiencies?
      Mr. Carlisle: Of course I shall be consulting the LEAs. I shall also be assessing individual schools on their individual abilities and relating them to needs in the area; that I accept.
      I want to come to the point of the hon. Member's question. He asked what the schools that are applying were. He implied that they are the second-rate schools. The situation is that to date there have been provisional replies from 430 of those schools and 113—[Interruption.] Provisional replies are what they were asked for. If I have got the wrong word, I apologise. They replied to express their provisional interest in involvement in the scheme, and 113 out of the 118 ex-direct
      1462
      grant school have indicated their interest in being involved in the scheme. Overall, the total number of places is now 12,000. Therefore, my intention and the desire that the scheme should be based basically on the old direct grant schools is, I believe, already being confirmed by the standard of school that is replying about the scheme.
      Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman again drew upon the instance of that direct grant scheme and used it as evidence to show that it offered opportunities to children that now allegedly do not exist. Is he aware—if he had been on the Committee he would be aware of it—of the class background of the children attending the direct grant schools?
      About 73 per cent. were from the administrative and professional classes, 20 per cent. were from skilled worker classes and 7 per cent. were from the unskilled worker class. That is the profile that will be continued through the assisted places scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be meeting one of his major objectives, which, allegedly, is to help poor children.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Carlisle: I should like to make two points. First, the financing of the assisted places scheme is different from that which existed previously.
      Secondly, although this is a lesser point, the ex-direct grammar schools still have at the latter end of their school age group those who were the entry of the old direct grant schools.
      I do not wish to be accused of knocking State education at all. However, I do not believe that anyone can, with honesty, say that certain centres of academic excellence in our industrial areas are not, for all kinds of historic reasons, based on the old direct grant schools. I used the example of Manchester grammar school. I shall take another example of a school which I recently visited. [Interruption.] The Labour Government threw them out by insisting that they could not continue with their previous status. That is what we are trying to restore.
      I shall take another example—Bradford grammar school—where the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right

      1463
      hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—was a student. Recently, I went to the prize-giving at Bradford grammar school—an ex-direct grant school—andsaw that one could not but be impressed by the high academic results achieved there.
      Mr. Ernest Armstrong: By selection.
      Mr. Carlisle: Of course. It is no criticism of the schools in the area to say that the results being achieved by the children at that school would not have been achieved by them if, instead of being at Bradford grammar school, they had been at other schools in the area. The ability to be educated in competition with those of one's own academic ability must have some reaction on the standard of education.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—
      Mr. Carlisle: I am trying to answer the debate. In the end, I have the responsibility to consider—with respect, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) got the legal basis wrong—the individual opportunities of the individual child. If I believe that a particular child of talent will benefit by attendance at certain of the old direct grant schools, it is a proper use of public money to assist that child to benefit from that education.
      Mr. Hughes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that he has a responsibility to other children in the State education system? If, as he said, there is a greater talent available going to the direct grant schools and if he is saying that the parents of those children may be more involved in their children's education, how can he help to raise general educational standards for those children who cannot get entry to direct grant schools by withdrawing other pupils and the parental involvement that is necessary to ensure that education is improved?
      Mr. Carlisle: The fundamental responsibility of any Secretary of State for Education and Science must be to the vast majority of the children in the State sector. I do not accept that the opportunities provided by the ex-direct grant system—now the assisted places scheme—
      1464
      will interfere with the opportunities available in the State sector. I have to weigh against that the effect of the opportunities for the individual child. I believe that we have the balance right.
      Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by the way in which he has embraced competition and the competitive virtue, and by the way in which he has applauded the attributes of the direct grant system, has given a strong and clear impression that it is his profound belief that he has to create this isolated separatist system to provide the opportunities about which he has been talking. But by that means he is discarding any interest in the children who are not in that sector.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about results. The 1977 Department of Education and Science statistics on school leavers who achieved one or more A-level passes as a percentage of those who attempted A-level examinations show 85·1 per cent. for comprehensive schools, 91·6 for grammar schools, 77·9 per cent. for modern schools and others, 95 per cent. for direct grant schools, 91·2 per cent. for independent schools, recognised as efficient, and 87·8 per cent. for all schools. That is the margin of difference between schools with the advantages of emphasis on academic achievement against schools with practically none of those advantages. There is no difference in the outturn.
      Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that the old direct grant schools were a useful and valuable addition to the maintained sector of education available to children. I believe that we are right to restore that similar opportunity through the assisted places scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) talked about the scheme being politically unwise at this time. Of course, I realise that the Department, at this moment—I have never disguised the fact—is under serious financial restraint over education generally.
      I have equally made clear that I would retain the timing and the speed and the degree of implementation of the assisted places scheme in my own hands. It is only right, in view of the speculation that has arisen in the press over recent weeks, and in view of certain remarks today, that I should make clear that my

      1465
      present plan is to start the scheme in 1981. I propose that it should start, in the first financial year, at a cost of £3 million, building up over the period to 1983–84 and providing for the admission of about 6,000 pupils a year. I would say to my hon. Friend that it is beyond belief that the spending of £3 million in this way against a total budget of £8 billion can possibly be expected to have the effect that he suggests.
      I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North that one cannot go on arguing about marginal costs. The whole of the education expenditure is based on the idea of the cost of the individual child. The cost of the support under the assisted places scheme is likely to be very similar to the cost of educating that child free at the moment in the State scheme. I do not accept that the implementation of the assisted places scheme will have any adverse effect on the State education system.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: I abstained on the Second Reading of the Bill because of this clause. My right hon. and learned Friend has repeated his undertaking, given on Second Reading and in Committee, to introduce the scheme in 1981. As the Government have to refer inevitably to the possibility of further public spending cuts in the period 1980–81, would it not be appropriate for him to consider deferring further the introduction of this scheme, even on a partial basis, bearing in mind the difference between expending public money on this scheme and reducing educational expenditure in all other areas?
      Mr. Carlisle: I obviously had to consider this matter. I have decided that rather than defer the introduction of the scheme, the right decision would be to introduce it in 1981 but at half the level that I originally intended. The cost in that financial year will, therefore, be about £3 million.
      I have listened on many occasions to the objections of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North to the scheme, but, with respect, one of the weakest arguments that he could have advanced tonight was the one that I can only describe as giving in to blackmail. He suggested that we should not go forward with the scheme because the
      1466
      Labour Party has threatened to do away with it in the future.
      My hon. and learned Friend said that he thought it was reasonable to make special provision out of public funds for children to attend special schools where music is taught. If he accepts that in principle, whether it be the Yehudi Menuhin school or Chetham's school of music, what is the difference between that and providing help to children of high academic ability to enable them to go to a school of an academic bent?
      Mr. Miscampbell: The difference is quite clear. One is a specialised thing, which it is not a general requirement to provide; the other is fundamental to our whole education system. We ought to cherish our brightest children. One would have thought that a Secretary of State would hold on to them rather than give them away. We ought to use them.
      Mr. Carlisle: My hon. and learned Friend uses the phrase "give them away", rather in the manner that another hon. Member talked earlier about urchins and gutters. I found those terribly unattractive phrases to use, even if characteristic. We are not talking about giving children away, or about poaching, or urchins, or gutters. We are trying to provide a system that will give the best educational opportunities to individual children in this country. If by not only making use of the existing maintained sector but making partial use of those provisions that already exist in the independent sector we can assist the opportunities available to individual children, we are right to do so. That is why I believe that the scheme is right and that the amendment is totally misguided.
      Mr. Flannery: The Minister, by his doctrinaire intransigence, has rendered himself quite impervious to reasoned argument. It does not matter what we say; the Conservative Party will go through with its elitist scheme. We know that. None the less, the arguments need to be put and are being put. We spent nearly 100 hours in Committee listening basically to one Conservative Member and putting our arguments there. Then we have to put up with new clauses that were not put during those 100 hours, and that apparently have emerged only in the last few hours.

      1467
      The sheer arrogance of the argument to which we have just listened is almost unbelievable. Clause 17 begins with wording that is completely removed from reality, after all the long years of maintained education. It reads:
      "For the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to do so to benefit from education at independent schools".
      In all conscience, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is talking about? The implication in that is that somehow or other the maintained schools do not produce the standard of education that can be obtained in private schools. What utter claptrap—and of course, our people know it. That is why the Tory council of Blackpool and Tory councils throughout the country are opposed to any scheme to reintroduce the 11-plus examination. In fact, the Conservative Party knows that—in line with practically every other policy it has in every other sphere of human conduct—it is now defending the indefensible in education.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no arguments whatever. Hon Members will only need to read his speech tomorrow to realise how barren of any real educational approach it was. All that we are asking him to do is to consult the local education authority before this programme is put into action.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman has intoned, like an incantation, for years that the Conservative Party wants decentralisation, yet as soon as we ask for the local education authorities to be consulted we are told that that cannot be done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman actually used the word "diktat". He said that he did not want any diktat from local education authorities—those who are elected councillors carrying out policies at the chalk face. They are democratically elected. One Conservative Member used the expression "elected dictatorship". I do not know whether that exists, but the closest that we have come to it is with the Government, who are determined that no locally elected people shall have the power to issue a diktat.
      1 am
      Let us get down to brass tasks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to consult local councillors, but
      1468
      wishes to resurrect the 11-plus examination. He believes that these schools can provide some special education which cannot be provided by the maintained sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman heard his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) say that the results from schools in Blackpool, and other areas, in terms of O-and A-levels were as good as those in the private sector, even with the larger classes that exist in local authority schools.
      We tried to raise other matters. We pointed out that the segregation of elitist children is not compatible with the comprehensive system. It means that certain parents and children will no longer have access to the comprehensive schools, nor will they be able to add their voices to discussions of the comprehensive system. Certain children will receive special concessions at a time when other children are having concessions removed. [Interruption.] When Conservative Members scream, I know that the facts hurt.
      The National Union of Teachers said in a report:
      "This Government proposes to increase significantly the revenue of the independent sector at a time when it is inflicting uprecedented cuts on the maintained sector. New money and new pupils are to be introduced to private education at the expense of the maintained sector. While county and voluntary schools face a period of reduced capitation and fewer pupils, restraints in the curriculum, the curtailment of subjects and even teacher redundancy, the Government by direct intervention proposes the expansion and new growth of private schools."
      One reason why we wish local education authorities to be consulted is that we know that many of the schools will be filled with these new pupils and that new private schools will be established. That is precisely what the Conservative Party is after. It is not after merely a rebirth of the schools. It wants public money for those schools. It has always wanted public money for them.
      When the previous Labour Administration curtailed public spending on private schools, Conservative hon. Members immediately screamed, and now the Government are returning public money to those schools at a time when they are cutting expenditure on other services, such as nursery schools. They wish to give £60 million to the children of their own

      1469
      supporters. That is the reality, and that is what the Labour Party is fighting against.
      Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, apart from the handout of public money that will occur as a result of the assisted places scheme, fee-paying schools—they are called public schools, but that is a misnomer—also receive handouts by way of tax concessions? How many millions of pounds do such schools receive?
      Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is correct. The Conservative Party will draw from the Exchequer in the interests of its own children. Anybody who disagrees with that may intervene.
      Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Flannery: Splendid. I shall give way in a moment. Is it not a reality that a sum of £55 million is being taken from the education of our children generally to be given to a few children of Conservative Party supporters?
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: All that I can say is that one of the greatest reasons for having the House of Commons is that it keeps the hon. Gentlemen out of a primary school. I remain convinced that one can run an assisted places scheme at a lower cost to the common exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman called it, than the maintained system. If parents who would qualify for the assisted money were so confident about the system provided by the State, they would not choose to take up those places. The hon. Gentleman must face that reality. Can he say what proportion of the lower-income families who would benefit would want to try? As a Member of Parliament, does the hon. Gentleman believe that a county or education authority should have the right to say to those families that they are wrong and that he is right?
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman must think that we are incredibly naive. Obviously he wants to get buckshee from public money what at present he has to pay for privately. We all know that. I remember the last time that the hon. Gentleman intervened in my speech. He told me that he had been educated in a comprehensive school. I checked, and discovered that he went to a public school
      1470
      and was in America for a short time, where no such schools exist.
      Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my correcting him, as I often have to do. What I said was that at the age of 11 I went to a comprehensive school.
      Mr. Canavan: Where was it?
      Mr. Bottomley: It was in Washington DC. As it happens, when I went back to the school two years ago I discovered that it had been closed because families had had the opportunity of taking their children away from it as better schools were available.
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. When he spoke, he never told us that the school was in Washington. He led us to believe that it was in England.
      I want to take up an important point about inspection. The local education authority has all its schools inspected by reputable inspectors. We want these schools inspected. For example, teachers who have been kicked out of the maintained sector and fled into the private sector, often because they have assaulted children—[Interruption.] It is all very well Conservative Members laughing, but I assure them that any teachers' union will confirm that these things occur, even though many teachers belong to a union to defend themselves against charges of that nature.
      We want the capitation allowances, the number of books and the size of classes inspected by the local authority. We want the sizes of classrooms inspected. We want to ensure that the children who leave the splendid education in the maintained sector are not going to something much worse. That is the reality of what I am saying, because we can prove by results that the maintained sector is better than anything in the private sector. Therefore, we want to defend the maintained sector.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously advancing that argument, is he saying that he has so little regard for the interest, concern or sense of parents that he believes that they will send their children to schools, often at their own expense, which are far worse than those in the State system? That is what he appears to be saying.
      Mr. Flannery: I conclude on this point—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been answered over and over again. He knows that my whole life proves that I am dedicated to the education of children. I made the terrible mistake of thinking, at one stage, that the Minister was similarly dedicated. But the right hon. Lady, his master, has told him to do something different. That is the reality.
      I want to deal—
      Mr. Patrick Cormack Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West) rose—
      Mr. Flannery: I want—
      Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
      Mr. Flannery: I just want to take up one more point before I—
      Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to tell the hon. Gentleman again.
      Mr. Flannery: I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page), who was described by one of my hon. Friends as not being a mental giant. He mentioned his concern for parental choice. We all know how deeply concerned the Conservative Party is about parental choice in education. During all the years when there was an 11-plus examination, 85 per cent. of parents had no choice whatever. It depended upon whether there was a grammar school in the area and the variation in the IQ of the children. In some areas children with an 10 of 100 got a place, and in other areas their IQ had to be an average of 117 before they were
      accepted. It also depended upon the number of grammar school places that were available. All the other children were consigned to secondary modern schools, and a serious attempt is now being made by the Conservatives not merely to bring back the 11-plus but to resurrect the secondary modern school for our children. We shall fight that tooth and nail.
      The hon. Member for Harrow, West talked about parental choice, but we never saw him get to his feet along with the other hon. Members to defend the parental choice of the 85 per cent. of parents whose children went to a secondary modern school whether they like it or not.
      The Conservatives are a race of hypocrites out for something for themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw,"] I withdraw the word "hypocrite". The Conservatives are engaging in hypocrisy. Is that better? They want something for nothing, and they want it at the expense of our children. We shall not let them have it if we can avoid it.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I intervene for 30 seconds to deal very kindly with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and remind him that even in the great ILEA, which has officially got rid of the 11-plus, during the last two months 11-year-old children have been taking the 11-plus examination, so that many of them will not be able to go to a school of their parents' choice because they are too bright, too dim or too average. The 11-plus is still there.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 292.

      Division No. 176]

      AYES

      [1.15 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Adams, Allen

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Allaun, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cohen, Stanley

      Alton, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Coleman, Donald

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Buchan, Norman

      Cowans, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

      Campbell, Ian

      Crowther, J. S.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Cryer, Bob

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Beith, A. J.

      Cant, R. B.

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Carmichael, Neil

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cartwright, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Richardson, Jo

      Deakins, Eric

      Kerr, Russell

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Dempsey, James

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dewar, Donald

      Knox, David

      Robertson, George

      Dixon, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Dobson, Frank

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Dormaad, Jack

      Lamond, James

      Rooker, J. W.

      Douglas, Dick

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roper, John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Leighton, Ronald

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ryman, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Litherland, Robert

      Sever, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Sheerman, Barry

      Easiham, Ken

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silverman, Julius

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McElhone, Frank

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Evans, John (Newlon)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Ewing, Harry

      McKelvey, William

      Snape, Peter

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Soley, Clive

      Field, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Flennery, Martin

      McMahon, Andrew

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McNally, Thomas

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Forrester, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stoddart, David

      Foster, Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Stott, Roger

      Foulkes, Gaorge

      Magee, Bryan

      Strang, Gavin

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Straw, Jack

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Freud, Clement

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      George, Bruce

      Maxton, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Golding, John

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Graham, Ted

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Tilley, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Torney, Tom

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Haynes, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Weetch, Ken

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morton, George

      Wellbeloved, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Welsh, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Newens, Stanley

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Home Robertson, John

      Ogden, Eric

      Whitlock, William

      Homewood, William

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hooley, Frank

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Horam, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Howells, Geraint

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Huckfield, Les

      Park, George

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Parry, Robert

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wright, Sheila

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Penhaligon, David

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      John, Brynmor

      Prescott, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Race, Reg

      Mr. James Tinn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Ancram, Michael

      Blackburn, John

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Arnold, Tom

      Blaker, Peter

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Body, Richard

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Buck, Antony

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Budgen, Nick

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Banks, Robert

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bright, Graham

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Brinton, Tim

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Brittan, Leon

      Channon, Paul

      Best, Keith

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Chapman, Sydney

      1474

      1475

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Raison, Timothy

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Colvin, Michael

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Tim

      Cope, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Corrie, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Costain, A. P.

      Lang, Ian

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Critchley, Julian

      Latham, Michael

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Crouch, David

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rost, Peter

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lee, John

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Dover, Denshore

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Loveridge, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Luce, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Eggar, Timothy

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Silvester, Fred

      Emery, Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Skeet, T, H. H.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Speed, Keith

      Farr, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Speller, Tony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Spence, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McCuarrie, Albert

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

      Major, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marland, Paul

      Squire, Robin

      Format, Nigel

      Marlow, Tony

      Stainton, Keith

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fox, Marcus

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Stanley, John

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mates, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Stevens, Martin

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stokes, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Glimour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mellor, David

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      Goodhart, Philip

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Thomas, Rt Hon peter (Hendon S)

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thompson, Donald

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Moate, Roger

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Molyneaux, James

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Gray, Hamish

      Monro, Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Greenway, Harry

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Grieve, Percy

      Moore, John

      Trippier, David

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Trotter, Neville

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Grylls, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Murphy, Christopher

      Waddinglon, David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Myles, David

      Wakeham, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Hannam, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neubert, Michael

      Ward, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Newton, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Watson, John

      Hayhce, Barney

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Heddle, John

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd a Stev'nage)

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Wheeler, John

      Haseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Whitney, Raymond

      Hill, James

      Parris, Matthew

      Wickenden, Keith

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Pattle, Geoffrey

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Hordern, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wollson, Mark

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Porter, George

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Mr. Carol Mather.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 17

      ASSISTED PLACES AT INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS
      Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 18, line 5 after 'conditions', insert 'of parental income'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 110, in page 18, line 17 at end insert—
      '(6A) For the purpose of this section the parental income shall be defined as the total gross income of the family".
      Mr. Kinnock: We now come to the question of the income test for parents seeking admission for their children to the assisted places scheme. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to discuss the matter in detail because of the way in which our discussions have been truncated. I shall speak briefly because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
      The proposition in clause 17 is that children who might not otherwise be able to do so, presumably on the ground of their parents' limited income, should be able to take advantage of places in the independent sector. We have always held the belief that this is a false prospectus and that the possibility of poor children being able to participate in education in the private sector by means of this scheme is remote. Indeed, the idea that the proposal is for the children of the poor is a cosmetic to disguise the restoration of the direct grant system, with all its distortions and unequal distribution of opportunity.
      Examination of the figures in the written answer of 7 February 1980 will more than adequately demonstrate that our fears about the scheme and the opportunities allegedly said to be open to the children of the poor have been well founded. It is worth commenting that if anything should attract the support of Conservative Back Benchers it is the idea that, for reasons of charity and humanitarianism, the scheme could offer opportunities for children from poor backgrounds. Yet, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report there has been little support for the Government from their Back Benchers. Indeed, in the last debate only one Conservative Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Harrow,
      1478
      West (Mr. Page)—spoke in support of the Government. The Government will know how much store to set by that degree of support.
      The Government propose that there should be a sliding scale of contributions depending on the total family income. Remission will be made according to that income and set against the fees. On first sight of the lower income level, the fact that a family with an income of less than £4,000 per annum will be able to have access to the scheme for one of its children absolutely free appears to be an egalitarian measure. At least it appears to provide an opportunity that did not exist previously. However, taking into account the class structure of the country, which I suggest Opposition Members are more intensely engaged upon destroying than are Conservative Members, it is inconceivable that there will be a substantial take-up among the poor with incomes of less than £4,000 per annum of the opportunities alleged to be offered by the assisted places scheme. Indeed, unless there were to be a sudden resolution of the class conflict and removal of class divisions, it is impossible to conceive of that sort of advantage being taken. I do not imagine that in the lifetime of this Government, or for several Governments to come, we shall see the miraculous eradication of the class system.
      1.30 am
      However, there are other reasons for believing that this system has never been geared to the needs of the poor. About half an hour ago the Secretary of State informed us that the Government intend to spend £3 million on 6,000 pupils. That is an average, over each year, of £500 per head. As a result, the Government anticipate that the overwhelming majority of those going into assisted places will come from homes that will require remissions of substantially less than £500 a year.
      Therefore, if the total allocation for each year is divided by the number of children they expect in the scheme, the children of the poor will not reap any advantage. The Government recognise that. The other weakness of the Government's proposal is that they manage to equate attendance at maintained schools for two years before the great deciding examination with poverty—or something

      1479
      less than affluence. That is a ridiculous error.
      There is evidence to show that the Government do not pretend that the scheme will help the poor. We have received no undertaking, despite continuous questioning, about how much each parent will be expected to pay in addition to the fees in order to meet the conditions of attendance. We have had no indication whether children are to be assisted with travel to school or with school meals.
      We have received no definition of the role of education authorities. Will they be permitted to provide top-up finance towards tuition, boarding and travelling fees as well as towards other additional expenses? If local authorities or school bursaries do not provide money, the vast majority of those on limited incomes will never be able to send their children to such schools.
      Turning to the reality of the Government's suggested income structure, the family with one child and a total income of £6,000 a year will be expected to pay £354 towards the annual tuition costs of the assisted place. That family is likely to have a mortgage involving repayments of £1,400 a year. After tax and other stoppages, it is likely to have a net income of £4,800 a year. The sum of £354 represents one-tenth of the family's net income after meeting the basic needs of housing, and after tax and national insurance contributions. It is impossible to imagine that such a family would be able to send its child to an assisted place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. The tuition costs will represent one-tenth of that family's net income. That does not include travelling costs or the cost of school meals. To send such a child to an assisted place would require a level of aspiration that is beyond even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).It is cruel to play such a joke. If a family aspires to get its child into private education by this means, it will find that the Government's formula mocks it.
      If a family has a gross income of £7,800, it will be expected to pay tuition fees of £894, provided that it has only one child. It will have a net income of approximately £6,200 a year after stoppages. It will be paying about £2,000 per annum for its mortgage at present
      1480
      interest rates, leaving a residual income of about £4,200. That family will have to pay one-fifth of its income to get a child into the scheme. If the Minister doubts my figures, I suggest that he pops along to the Library to read the written answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on 7 February.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentlemen tells us a sad and heartrending story of a family on £6,000 a year being required to spend £354 a year on school fees for one child, which will be one-tenth of its net income. If the husband and wife each smoked 20 cigarettes a day, how much would they save—[HON. MEMBERS: 'Choice".]—if they decided that instead of spending money on cigarettes they would stop smoking and send their child to school at a cost of £354 a year? If the hon. Gentleman made that calculation, I believe that he would find that that couple would make a significant saving, in addition to sending their child to school and improving their health.
      Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman should explain other factors. Why is it that that couple, with their limited income, and ready to give up smoking and drinking—if ever started—get assistance to send their child to an independent school but do not receive the bus fares to send that child to a maintained school? That is only one inconsistency. There are many others.
      The major inconsistency is in the scheme itself. The Government suggest that the child who qualifies is one who manages to reach his or her examination-passing capability at 11 or 13 years of age, whose parents can afford to pay a substantial part of the fees not met by the assisted places scheme and who neither smoke, drink nor want to take holidays. I suppose that there are such people, and I am the last to criticise them. If people want to surrender their pleasures in order, as they think, to advantage their child, they have my full commendation as caring parents. However, does the Minister really want to superimpose on all the other selective disadvantaging systems in our society the further requirement on a family not to participate in normal habits, to no great excess, in order to secure that opportunity for its child, which is at least dubious in advantage, if that advantage exists?

      1481
      We can debate choice further, but that is better not done during a guillotined Report stage. I hope that we shall have that opportunity later.
      Mr. Michael Brown: Further to the point raised by may hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North(Mr. Marlow), I know of a number of people in my constituency, as must other hon. Members, whose income is not much more than £6,000 or £7,000, and who pay much more than £350 a year to send their children to private school. It is not incredible, if parents have saved and made the choice, that they should wish to pay £350 a year for an assisted place.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am the first to recognise that such people exist. They have freedom to follow their choice, for whatever reason. I object to the idea that a precondition to securing what the Government consider to be an advantage for a child should be the test of parental interest and motivation. I hope that the Minister will distinguish between all these aspects. Unless he does, he will leave a confused view of the possibilities offered by the scheme.
      What about the realities? What about the systems that we already have for testing? What are the consequences of providing various forms of assistance for families when the aspirations and motivations vary from family to family? In Cheshire—a county with which the Secretary of State will be familiar—there is an assisted places scheme. A report provided by the chief education officer to the education committee at the beginning of this year showed the income distribution of the parents of children using the scheme. Twenty-four per cent. of children in the scheme were covered by a heading of "incomes not declared", presumably because the income level was too high to benefit from any financial assistance. The other figures were: incomes over £10,000, 32 per cent; incomes between £7,000 and £10,000, 26 per cent.; incomes between £5,000 and £7,000, 11 per cent.; incomes between £3,000 and £5,000, 5 per cent.; and incomes below £2,000, 2 per cent.
      If that is the consequence of an assisted places scheme, it is certainly not offering advantages to people on the kind of incomes scale that was laid down by the
      1482
      Secretary of State in his answer to the hon. Member for Streatham on 7 February. Hon. Members can examine these papers from the Cheshire county council at any time. They emphasise and demonstrate yet again the enormous disparities in the use of such systems, dependent almost entirely on the material background of the home and the social class from which the pupil comes.
      If Conservative Members want to join us in the eradication of those class divisions, I will cheerfully join hands with them. But they have a most schizophrenic attitude. They want to espouse the idea of ending all the class divisions, while at the same time insisting on maintaining, watering and otherwise manuring the roots of that class system by keeping the independent sector in education.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Earlier, when I suggested that the average cost of the assisted places scheme would be less than that of maintaining a child in the State sector the hon. Gentleman told me that I was wrong. He has now said that his average estimated cost is £500, which is lower than the average cost in the maintained school.
      The hon. Gentleman read out the income bands in Cheshire, but surely those must be compared with the distribution of income in Cheshire itself. Has he bothered to do the research to find out what proportion of families in Cheshire have an income of less than £3,000, or between £3,000 and £5,000? Or is he just producing figures which provide no comparison and therefore mean nothing?
      Mr. Kinnock: It is fair to use the figures produced by the Cheshire county council, on which basis it is prepared to decide the future of its scheme. Even if that were not the case, and even if the local authority were not acting on the basis of these figures, I cannot imagine that Cheshire is such a blessed plot on the face of England that it is so different from the general pattern of income distribution as to make these figures meaningless or worth less than I think they are.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) rose—
      Mr. Kinnock: I shall give way to the hon. Member later. I realise that he is from Cheshire and I will give way, but I

      1483
      was hoping that I would not be interrupted quite so often. A lot of hon. Members want to speak before we reach the witching hour of two o'clock.
      Conservative Members must, in their support for this system, understand that there are elementary weaknesses in the view that by providing this system they can achieve their declared aim—and I give them credit at least for declaring it—of providing for those who are materially disadvantaged. Professor Halsey's recent publication "Origins and Destinations" demonstrates the differentials yet again. He says:
      "Class differentials are most extreme in the case of the independent Headmasters' Conference schools; a boy from the service class"—
      that is administrative or professional class and above—
      "had nearly forty times the chance of his working-class peer of entering one of these schools…In the case of Direct Grant schools his chance was twelve times as good, and in that of the grammar schools it was three times as good."
      1.45 am
      There is a dictatorship of class in the system of educational opportunity. It should be a matter of unanimity, if we represent the people and children of this country, that we are determined to eradicate those divisions, not only because of our interest in securing the educational advantage of the children, but because we know that the divisions that begin as fissures of selection at the age of 11 widen and harshen into intracable divisions in industry, culture and attitude and become prolonged and repeated from generation unto generation. If any hon. Member considers that that system of breach and enmity is unhelpful, unproductive and altogether abominable, he will not seek to perpetuate those divisions by trying to introduce an assisted places scheme, even with the cosmetic of trying to help those from less affluent backgrounds.
      The facts are known. We have seen the direct grant scheme and the Cheshire example. We understand what the income scale will boil down to. The system was never intended to benefit the poor. It has always been an accommodation of parental snobbery scheme, and not a scheme for the assistance of children who could not secure advantage.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is probable that Cheshire needs to take up quite a number of places in an independent Catholic school, because there are inadequate Catholic schools to provide an education for children of the many parents who wish to use denominational schools? I am sure that, from what the hon. Gentleman has said about school transport, he values the denominational schools and will wish to see Cheshire continue to take up those places. Will he correct the impression that he has given to the House?
      Mr. Kinnock: If it is a mistaken impression, I shall certainly correct it, though I do not think that it is mistaken. I do not think that the distribution is so eccentric as to make those figures meaningless. I repeat that the Cheshire county council is making major educational decisions on the basis of the figures. Who is to say that in other parts of the country there will not always be caveats, reservations and demographic considerations that may slightly strengthen the Secretary of State's argument or enormously weaken it?
      The case put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield does not make any significant difference to the argument. However, I hope that his concern for the rights of people to secure denominational education for their children will be demonstrated tomorrow when we shall be testing whether he and his hon. Friends really want people to have the right of choice of denominational education as we discuss the transport clause.
      Dr. Boyson: We do not like the amendments. One would involve the whole income of the family, which would mean a return to the means tests of the 1930s, which I am sure are well remembered by the Labour Party, and the other would allow parents to exclude only the income of their children.
      It was interesting to hear the attack of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the income scale that we have provided. He complained not that we are helping the rich but that some parents will not be able to afford fees, even with the help that we are offering. We must have disappointed Labour Members.
      Mr. Kinnock: It is a con trick.
      Dr. Boyson: We shall see whether parents take it up. Let us see what the hon. Gentleman says in two years' time. He and his hon. Friends would not be so worried if they thought that it was a con trick. They fear what may happen.
      A family with an income of £4,000 a year and one child will not have to make any contribution. The minimum help under the scheme goes to a one-child family earning £7,800. No mortgage payments are included—nothing but £300 per child. There is no question of mortgages or anything adding up.
      At present, the average wage, upgraded from 1979 earnings, is £5,928. The average income of a family—this figure includes pensioners—is £6,250. I do not think that anyone can say that we are being over-generous by it being free up to £4,000 with one child, and going up to £7,800, beyond which no help is given.
      What will it mean? Let us have the figures, instead of going round the country and seeing what is happening in Cheshire, the Windermere canal area and other odd places. Let us look at the situation. This scale will mean that 30 per cent. of families can send their children to the ex-direct grant schools free; they pay nothing. Incidentally, those are the families with least income. That does not seem wrong to me or to my hon. Friends. It may not even seem wrong to the hon. Member for Bedwellty. He may see nothing wrong in the 30 per cent. at the bottom paying nothing.
      Mr. Christopher Price Mr. Christopher Price rose—
      Dr. Boyson: I shall give way in a minute. I must get these scales across. I know that this is worrying Opposition Members, but they must have a degree of patience.
      Forty-three per cent. will get some help, and 27 per cent.—those at the top, such as Members of Parliament, the people gathered here, the rich and the class-ridden in our society—will get nothing. It seems to me that we are doing this pretty fairly.
      Mr. Christopher Price Mr. Christopher Price rose—
      Dr. Boyson: Let me give three illustrations, then I shall give way.
      Mr. Christopher Price Mr. Christopher Price rose—
      Dr. Boyson: No, the hon. Member will have to wait for the three illustrations. They may answer his point, because I know that he is carefully following what I am saying.
      A mathematics teacher with £5,512—we are short of maths teachers, so I am saying this to encourage them—with one child, will pay £4 a week. We have had illustrations of where one can save that sum, and I shall come to that matter later.
      The agricultural labourer is often mentioned when social benefits are discussed. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an expert on the agricultural labourer. He exists—and I do not mean that at all unpleasantly. I am sure that the hon. Member would want to know how the agricultural labourer will be affected. On the average wage of £3,500 it will be free, whether he has one child, two, four or whatever number. For the docker, the average income is £6,500. If he had one child he would pay £504. If he had three children he would pay £324. There is no doubt that on that scale the help is going to those who need it.
      Mr. Christopher Price: When the hon. Gentleman says that 30 per cent. will go free, is he saying that, in terms of the 6,000 places and the £5 million, the Government have calculated that that is the result that they expect and aim to achieve when the first tranche of the assisted place pupils enter the schools?
      I see the Secretary of State mumbling "No, no, no". If the answer is "No", will the Minister say whether what he has said is true or false?
      Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member knows me well enough to know that, obviously, what I say is true. What I mean is that children from 30 per cent. of the families in this country will go free on this scale. Obviously the hon. Member wants to know what will happen under this scheme, and he will become a supporter of it as we go along. We must try it in an experimental, progressive fashion, and see what actually happens.
      Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Dr. Boyson:Let me just repeat the figures for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I do not want him to have a worried night. For 30 per cent. of families it will be free; 43 per cent. will have some help; and 27 per cent. will have no help at all. That is what it means.
      Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem with the Opposition's argument—which has taken up much of the time that Back Benchers might have used—is that they would prefer people to spend their money on a motor car or on smoking rather than on educating their children as they would like? What they really want to do is to exclude from these schools the very people for whom they ought to be fighting.
      Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. It seems to me that once this scale is published, and once people know the help that they can get—and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said tonight, 113 of the 118 former direct grant schools have applied, with their superb sixth form academic record, which no one in this Chamber can deny—shouts of joy will be heard in this country. I have no doubt about that.
      Let me go on to another point about cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked about cost. I mentioned this point a number of times in Committee. Those who were not privileged to enjoy the 100-plus hours that we spent in Committee on the Bill must have a little of those joys this evening.
      The average recoupment cost for children between the ages of 11 and 16 as between one county and another when real money has to go over and when counties become realistic—even county education officers become realistic at that time—is £675. At 16-plus the cost is £1,155. The figures for six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester average £841. Direct grant schools, we all agree, are heavily weighted at the sixth form. If one adds up—I know that many hon. Members have their mental calculators with them tonight and as 2 o'clock approaches they will work even more speedily—it means that Manchester ratepayers would save money if they sent their children to direct grant schools. I
      1488
      am not suggesting that all the children in Manchester should be sent to direct grant schools. I do not want to put that idea into people's heads. But no one can say that we are wasting money.
      Last week I visited a school on the South Coast, where I had a speaking engagement. Whilst there I looked at the day fees, which differed from those for day boarders, and compared them with day fees at Tiffins—a Manchester grammar school for day boys—and discovered how realistic the fees were.
      I should like to mention one other table, because it will answer one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty. The hon. Gentleman did not like our scale because people would have to make sacrifices to enable their children to attend the direct grant schools. That does not seem to be a bad thing. If people say "This is what we want; this is our priority", we are prepared to help them, but they must also try.
      By sheer chance I have here a table showing the distribution of income of families with children at independent secondary schools. I obtained this whilst listening to the hon. Member for Bedwellty, and we enjoyed listening to him in Committee from time to time. But this is new stuff. Neither of us has used this before. One might say that this is going out with a flourish this evening.
      The average family income is £6,200. Approximately 1·5 per cent. of children in independent secondary schools come from families with an income of less than £4,000; 2·1 per cent. come from families where the income is between £4,000 and £5,000; and 3·1 per cent. come from families with an income of £6,000 to £7,000. About 9·8 per cent. of children at independent secondary schools come from families with an income below £8,000. Those people are achieving what they want to do without any help at all.
      The direct grant scheme was different, because money was given to the school and the school then took in the pupils. Pupils from some of the richest families in the country could go there completely free. That is totally different from the assisted places scheme, because the money will go only to those who need it. The Opposition may not like it, but this is selectivity with a vengeance, because the money goes to those who need it.

      1489
      We believe that in some of the ex-direct grant and other schools where there are superb academic standards there are those who need help. Those studying mathematics and languages need help just as much as the ballet dancers and musicians. What is wrong with being born a linguist? Such a person may in future be able to help the country in his way. What is wrong with being born a mathematician? Of course, mathematicians are often spent by the time they reach the age of 30.
      We believe that this scheme will enable the children of some of the poorest families in the country to have a superb academic education. By doing that we shall be helping the hon. Member for Bedwellty to do what he wants to do, namely, to break the class system.
      2 am
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 290.

      Division No. 177]

      AYES

      [2 am

      Abse, Leo

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mabon, Rt Kon Dr J. Dickson

      Adams, Allen

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McElhone, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Harry

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

      Faulds Andrew

      McKelvey, William

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Field, Frank

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Atkinson, Norman (H gey, Tott'ham)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMahon, Andrew

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Forrester, John

      McNally, Thomas

      Beith, A. J.

      Foster, Derek

      McWilliam, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Foulkes, George

      Magee, Bryan

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Golding, John

      Maxton, John

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Graham, Ted

      Meacher, Michael

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Buchan, Norman

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Campbell, Ian

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Cant, R. B.

      Haynes, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morton, George

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Cohen, Stanley

      Homewood, William

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Coleman, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Horam, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cook, Robin F.

      Howells, Geraint

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cowans, Harry

      Huckfield, Les

      Palmer, Arthur

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Park, George

      Crowther, J. S.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Parry, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Pendry, Tom

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Penhaligon, David

      Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

      John, Brynmor

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnston, Russell (Iverness)

      Prescott, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Race, Reg

      Davies, I for (Gower)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kerr, Russell

      Richardson, Jo

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Dempsey, James

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Dewar, Dorald

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dixon, Donald

      Lamborn, Harry

      Robertson, George

      Dobson, Frank

      Lamond, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Dormand, Jack

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Douglas, Dick

      Leighton, Ronald

      Rooker, J. W.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Roper, John

      Dubs, Alfred

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Eadie, Alex

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Sever, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ellis, Raymond (N'E Derbyshire)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Whitlock, William

      Silverman, Julius

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Snape, Peter

      Tilley, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Torney, Tom

      Winnick, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Woodall, Alec

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Wright, Sheila

      Stoddart, David

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Young, David (Bolton East)

      Stott, Roger

      Weetch, Ken

      Strang, Gavin

      Wellbeloved, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Straw, Jack

      Welsh, Michael

      Mr. Terry Davis and

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Mr. James Tinn.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dover, Denshore

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Alexander, Richard

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Kaberry Sir Donald

      Ancram, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Arnold, Tom

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Eggar, Timothy

      Lamont, Norman

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Emery, Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Latham, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (NorthDorset)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Banks, Robert

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lee, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Fisher Sir Nigel

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Fletcher, Alexande- (Edinburgh N)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Best, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Loveridge, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Luce, Richard

      Blackburn, John

      Fraser Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Elaker, Peter

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner George (Reigate)

      MacGregor, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Goodhart, Philip

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Madel, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Gorst, John

      Major, John

      Bright, Graham

      Gow, Ian

      Marland, Paul

      Brinton, Tim

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Marlow, Tony

      Brittan, Leon

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gray, Hamish

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Greenway Harry

      Mates, Michael

      Brotherton, Michael

      Grieve, Percy

      Mather, Carol

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

      Maude, Rt Hon Angus

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mawby, Ray

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Grist, Ian

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Grylls, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Buck, Antony

      Gummer. John Selwyn

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Budgen, Nick

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

      Mellor, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Butcher, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hannam, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Moate, Roger

      Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

      Hayboe, Barney

      Monro, Hector

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Heddle, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Channon, Paul

      Henderson, Barry

      Moore, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heseitine, Rt Hon Michael

      Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Hill, James

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      Mudd, David

      Cockeram, Eric

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Colvin, Michael

      Hooson, Tom

      Myles, David

      Cope, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Needham, Richard

      Corrie, John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Neubert, Michael

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Newton, Tony

      Critchley, Julian

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Crouch, David

      Hurd, Hon Douglas

      Onslow, Cranley

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

      1492

      1493

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexloyheath)

      Parris, Matthew

      Shersby, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Silvester, Fred

      Trotter, Neville

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Sims, Roger

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Pawsey, James

      Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Speller, Tony

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Pollock, Alexander

      Spence, John

      Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

      Price, David (Easlleigh)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Waller, Gary

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

      Ward, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Sproat, Iain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Raison, Timothy

      Squire, Robin

      Watson, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stainton, Keith

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, Bowen (Kert'rd & Stev'nage)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stanley, John

      Wheeler, John

      Renton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stevens, Martin

      Whitney, Raymond

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Stokes, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rost, Peter

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wolfson, Mark

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thompson, Donald

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. John Wakeham.

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned pursuant to Orders [29 January and 11 February].
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

  BARLINNIE SPECIAL UNIT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
  2.11 am
  Mr. Russell Kerr: The Scottish Office is not universally admired as a centre of progress and reform, and neither is the Scottish prison system regarded as the undisputed leader in the quest for a sane, civilised and effective system of correction and control for those of Caledonia's wilder spirits who need the restraining hand of the law upon them.
  I introduce my subject for tonight's Adjournment debate in this way, because it is a fact that the Barlinnie special unit, on the East side of Glasgow and adjoining Barlinnie prison, was started in 1972 and has achieved its present success—a most impressive success, as I shall hope to demonstrate—more in spite of, rather than because of, the background whence it came.
  1494
  The Barlinnie experiment was, and is, based on the premise that lifers and other hard nut offenders will respond positively to being treated like human beings. Far from their period in prison proving to be, as it were, a postgraduate course in criminal activity, with the right sort of treatment, the offender, however bad his record, can be, and usually is, reclaimed for a useful role in society. That is what Barlinnie proves.
  Conditions at Barlinnie sometimes strike the ordinary member of the public as rather bizarre, and certainly provide a contrast to the rigid discipline of the ordinary prison. There are, for example, normally no restrictions on inward or outward mail. Inmates can also make or receive unlimited telephone calls on the unit's pay-phone.
  The staff employed at the unit are, of course, specially chosen—prison officers who combine a "firm-but-fair" general approach to the job with a considerable psychological insight into the mentality of prisoners, or at least that is the theory.
  Inevitably, of course, the ratio of staff to prisoners is high by comparison with ordinary prisons. And that means, too, that the cost of operating at Barlinnie will be rather greater than for the normal prison.
  Is this extra expense justified? After two visits to Barlinnie, I have no hesitation in answering that question in the affirmative.

  1495
  Three prisoners have already been released, and two more are due out shortly. Furthermore, their star prisoner, Jimmy Boyle, an internationally known sculptor and author, is due out in, I think, 1981. I have met, and had long talks with, Boyle on each of the two occasions that I have visited Barlinnie. If ever there was a case of a human being reclaimed, it is Boyle.
  A graduate of the Gorbals slums in Glasgow, Boyle had a most unenviable record as a Glasgow hoodlum and stand-over man—and a murderer to boot. Moreover, rumour had it that he was an "agent" of the notorious Kray brothers, a "hit man" in the modern terminology. Today, the unquestioned moving spirit of the Barlinnie special unit is the same Jimmy Boyle—cultivated, charming, intelligent and with some impressive works of sculpture to show to the visitor he escorts around the unit.
  But at this point, the weather gets rougher. Despite international interest in this "experiment"—personally, I do not know how much longer such a success story ought to go on being described as an experiment—the simple fact is that under both types of Government recently in power there has been a marked lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Scottish Office for the work of the unit. Partly, I believe this has been due to the quite fantastic publicity which Jimmy Boyle's artistic and other activities have attracted to the unit—with a consequent increase in the difficulty of dealing with other, less glamourous prisoners. Partly, I think it may be due to the innate conservatism of the Scottish Office, and the Home Office in England, where, despite the fact that it was a Conservative Administration—with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) prominently to the fore as the Minister most directly responsible—which launched the scheme, there has seemingly always been a suspicion of new-fangled ideas, particularly those that appeared to run counter to the philosophy set out in the Old Testament about crime and punishment, and suchlike notions beloved of our Victorian grandparents.
  Whatever the reason, there has been, not least under the previous Labour Administration, with one or two honourable exceptions, a marked unwillingness
  1496
  to encourage the present so-called experiment, together with a quite remarkable series of "institutional pressures" designed to play down Operation Barlinnie.
  Perhaps the most notorious was the case of Ken Murray, one of the senior prison officers most closely associated with the Barlinnie experiment, and who for so-called "career reasons" was sacked from the special unit against his will and very much against his colleagues' wishes in the unit. He is currently serving in a small prison near Glasgow and is rumoured to be contemplating a move to Australia.
  If he is lost to the Scottish service, it will be a terrible waste, and a terrible indictment of its bureaucratic approach. The fact is that he is amongst the most active and progressive of Scots prison officers, has studied at the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge—where I met him—and the Scottish Office can ill-afford to lose such talent.
  My plea tonight is to both the Scottish Office and the Home Office to stop hiding our light under a bushel. In the view of many, this Barlinnie exercise is a dramatically successful demonstration of what can be done when humane, progressive and intelligent policies are introduced to our perennial problem of what to do with those we still find it necessary to incarcerate for long periods.
  For the sake of future British society, we owe it to ourselves and to our children not to turn away from a major breakthrough in penal reform.
  2.19 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I greatly welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to go into the matters raised by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr). I do not propose to deal with his strictures on the Scottish Office or with his criticisms of the way in which Mr. Murray has been treated by the Scottish Office.
  The reason for that is that the subject of this debate is the extension to England and Wales of the Barlinnie special unit penal experiment. That is an important and constructive subject which ought to be considered, rather than raking back over the past to see whether the Scottish Office, under different Administrations,

  1497
  has shown the degree of enthusiasm which the hon. Gentleman would wish to see for this experiment.
  Barlinnie prison is fairly and squarely within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The operation and monitoring of the Barlinnie special unit does not fall to the Home Office. None the less, we naturally keep in the closest touch with our Scottish colleagues, and we are anxious to learn from their experiences and experiments.
  The special unit at Barlinnie was set up following the recommendations of a working party in the Scottish Home and Health Department on the treatment of certain male long-term prisoners and potentially violent prisoners, which reported in 1971. The working party's main task was to consider what arrangements should be made for the treatment of certain inmates who were likely to be detained in custody for very long periods or with propensities to violence towards staff. Prison staff in Scotland were particularly concerned about violent prisoners serving long determinate sentences and, since the abolition of the death penalty, about the prospect of very violent prisoners serving life sentences who might take the view that they had nothing to lose by violent and recalcitrant behaviour, and about the effect that these prisoners might have on others. In the course of its work the working party visited Grendon and Parkhurst C wing, a point to which I shall return.
  The main conclusion of the working party was that a special unit should be provided within the Scottish penal system for the treatment of known violent inmates, those considered potentially violent and selected long-term inmates. It was envisaged that the regime in the unit would be psychiatrically orientated, and that for this purpose there should be psychiatric support, that staff should be a mixture of discipline and nursing officers and that the traditional officer-inmate relationship should be modified to approximate more closely to a therapist-patient basis while retaining a firm but fair discipline system. The unit would have its own governor and would be run separately from any other establishment.
  The recommendation that a purpose-built unit be constructed within the grounds of Perth prison proved to be impracticable for various reasons. The only
  1498
  available building which readily lent itself to adaptation for the purpose was a block at Barlinnie prison which had previously been used to hold female prisoners. This was refurbished and the unit opened in February 1973. The first prisoners were admitted shortly afterwards.
  Though the unit is within the perimeter wall of Barlinnie it is separated from the main prison by another wall. It has its own staff complement—a governor and 14 officers, four of whom are in the nursing grades. The officers are all volunteers and are required to appear before a selection board for assessment as to suitability. Those who are successful attend a special course at the Scottish Prison Service College before taking up duty in the unit. The course includes a visit to both Grendon and Broadmoor. In addition to these permanent staff a consultant psychiatrist and psychologist give regular sessions at the unit.
  Ten places are available in the unit but no more than seven inmates have ever been detained there at one time. At present there are seven, of whom five are serving sentences of life imprisonment and two are serving determinate sentences. It can be seen, therefore, that the unit represents a heavy staffing commitment and the ratio of staff to inmates has always been high compared with other establishments. Perhaps at this point I should emphasise that the Scottish prison service has more officers per inmate than the service in England and Wales. Furthermore, in Scotland the commitment of prison officers to court duties is substantially less because the police there do a great deal of the escort duties.
  I turn now to the regime in the unit. Apart from the domestic duties of the unit, which are shared among the inmates, activities have included small-scale production—for example chessmen—education programmes and activities of a recreational or therapeutic nature such as sculpture and writing. Because of the limited space and lack of facilities, it has not been practicable to introduce a work routine of the type which would apply in a larger establishment, and each prisoner has, in effect, been made responsible for his own daily programme. A feature of the operation of the unit is that staff and inmates, as a community, regularly discuss and make recommendations

  1499
  on matters relating to the domestic operation of the unit. It is an essential feature of the operation of the unit that the staff-inmate relationship should be a close one and should attempt to break down traditional antagonisms. Visits and personal possessions are allowed on a more generous scale than normal, and inmates are allowed to wear their own clothing.
  A prisoner is recommended for transfer to the unit by the governor of the prison where he is serving his sentence. An assessment team from the unit comprising the governor, consultant psychiatrist and two members of the staff interview the prisoner and the staff who have had charge of him. The Scottish Home and Health Department takes the final decision as to a prisoner's suitability for the unit. The case is, however, discussed by the unit community—that is, both inmates and staff—before a recommendation is made. Thus inmates already in the unit have some involvement in the selection of their companions.
  The history of the unit and some aspects of its operation having been described, what assessment can be made of it? How do our Scottish colleagues view the unit, which has now been in existence for seven years?
  I do not make too much of the point, but I should make it clear that there are no current plans to set up additional units on similar lines in Scotland. That is partly a matter of resources, since, as I have already explained, the unit represents a heavy staffing commitment which could not readily be provided on an extensive scale. It is expensive to run. It is partly a matter of need. On the whole, the unit has successfully dealt with the problem which led to its setting up.
  The Scottish Home and Health Department does not make extravagant claims for the success of the Barlinnie unit. In the seven years that it has been open only 16 prisoners have passed through it. Of that number, four have subsequently been released from prison. Two prisoners were returned to normal prisons because they proved very difficult to manage even in the unit. One of these two seriously assaulted another inmate—the only such assault in the unit. The real claim to success is that, with the one exception I have just mentioned, the unit has succeeded in containing a number of
  1500
  prisoners whose previous records of violence to both staff and other prisoners had been appalling.
  It has also had some success in coming to terms with prisoners who were difficult to handle because of a deep-rooted sense of inadequacy. It is generally felt in the Scottish prison service that since the unit was opened there has been less serious violence and a reduction of tension elsewhere in the prison system in Scotland. Whilst this is hard to quantify there have, since the opening of the unit, been very few serious assaults on staff in other prisons in Scotland involving the use of a weapon. The number of minor and technical assaults has remained at much the same level. This is a remarkable achievement. On the other hand, no official claims are made as to the rehabilitative effect of the unit. Given the small number of men who have passed through it, it is bound to be some considerable time before anyone can make a judgment on the long-term benefits.
  Without attempting to do that. I think that we should consider the Barlinnie unit in context. We must do that when considering the lessons to be learnt for England and Wales. Certainly the idea of a therapeutic regime is not a novel one. The prison service in England and Wales has been active in experimenting with these ideas, the most notable example being Grendon, which opened in 1962. As I said at the start of my speech, the working party which led to the setting up of the Barlinnie unit visited Grendon and also Parkhurst C wing.
  It must also be borne in mind that there is a great difference in size between the prison services on either side of the border, with the total Scottish prison population being only about one-eighth of the total for England and Wales. The working party was well aware of the differences in scale when seeking ideas for dealing with difficult prisoners, in particular those with severe behavioural or personality problems.
  Thus in Scotland, Barlinnie has been developed, with considerable success, to meet a particular need. For England and Wales we have Grendon, which was established as a psychiatric prison to investigate and treat offenders suffering from disorders which call for a psychiatric approach and to explore the problem of the psychopath. In practice it has an

  1501
  important role in treating psychopathic offenders with the intelligence and motivation to benefit from group therapy. It is the only prison of its kind in the United Kingdom and the largest in Europe.
  Grendon relies heavily on group counselling as a means of enabling prisoners to discuss their problems and relieve their anxieties or aggression. Treatment of this nature in a prison depends for its success on enlightened staff—inmate relationships. Prison officers have an important therapeutic role—as in the Barlinnie unit—and have contributed much to Grendon's success. It would not be right to claim, however, that the Grendon regime is the same as that at the Barlinnie unit.
  The C wing at Parkhurst—though temporarily out of commission as a special facility while D wing is being rebuilt—illustrates another aspect of our more varied regimes. It provides, under the supervision of medical and other staff, a secure environment and structured regime for prisoners who suffer from mental disorder and who could not cope with the demands which the community at Grendon makes on its members. The C wing regime, in addition to helping prisoners cope with their sentences, frees the rest of the system of a number of otherwise difficult and disruptive prisoners. I must make it clear, however, that the concept and method are by no means the same as in Barlinnie.
  At a number of English prisons hospital annexes have been established which in general provide a regime less rigid than in a normal prison for those unable to cope with normal prison life. One of these, at Wormwood Scrubs, operates as a therapeutic community supervised by two visiting consultant psychiatrists.
  In addition, I should point out that the far greater size of the English system, with its use of dispersal prisons makes it possible for violent and disruptive prisoners to be handled in ways which could not be available in Scotland. But the examples that I have given of the special provisions made in our own prison system show that a facility along the lines of the Barlinnie unit would be entirely compatible with what already exists in England and Wales.
  We do not, however, have specific plans to introduce a similar unit, but we are
  1502
  taking the utmost interest in the Barlinnie experiment. Indeed, we have active plans to study its future and see the lessons that can be learnt from it for England and Wales. We have arranged for senior Home Office officials to visit Barlinnie shortly, for the specific purpose of considering whether anything comparable is necessary, feasible and desirable on this side of the border.
  For the moment, my view is that the argument so far put forward for such an experiment is cogent and impressive. But, of course, before deciding whether and when any plans should be made for such an experiment south of the border we shall have to await the results of the further examination of the Barlinnie unit that is taking place, and also take into account the inescapable fact that there are many other changes and improvements competing for a slice of our budget.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am encouraged by that part of the Minister's reply. Can he tell us whether the senior Home Office officials who have been asked to look into this will also consider what I regard as the real progress at Barlinnie, namely, a reduction in the number of rules and a more generous interpretation of those that remain? That has given prisoners and staff an opportunity to break away from the normal tight institutionalisation normally found in prisons. If that principle could be applied throughout our prisons we might give prisoners the self-respect necessary to reform themselves, and we might also give it to the staff to help them to reform themselves.
  Mr. Brittan: The features described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) form part of the Barlinnie regime. Obviously, the senior Home Office officials who will look at Barlinnie will examine the implications and potential for development along those lines in England and Wales.
  It is fair to say that even in Scotland the Barlinnie unit is conceived as having a special role for a special purpose in relation to particular prisoners who have had specific problems. It is in that context that it should be looked at, and it is in that context that it will be looked at in a serious and constructive way
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock am

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Prisoners (Terrorists)
  Prisoners (Terrorists)
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Assaults)
  Police (Assaults)
  Borstal Detention
  Borstal Detention
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Diplomatic Immunity (Vehicles)
  Diplomatic Immunity (Vehicles)
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Mr. A. Mady
  Mr. A. Mady
  Elections (Voting Rights)
  Elections (Voting Rights)
  Murder (Life Sentences)
  Murder (Life Sentences)
  London Prisons
  London Prisons
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Detention Centre Training (Medical Reports)
  Detention Centre Training (Medical Reports)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Bomb Shelters
  Bomb Shelters
  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Taxi and Car Hire Businesses
  Taxi and Car Hire Businesses
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Steel Dispute (Picketing)
  Steel Dispute (Picketing)
  Nationalisation and Registration
  Nationalisation and Registration
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Suspected Persons (Metropolitan Police District)
  Suspected Persons (Metropolitan Police District)
  ISLE OF ELY
  ISLE OF ELY
  OLYMPIC GAMES
  OLYMPIC GAMES
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL VISITS)
  RUGBY
  RUGBY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY
  NATO
  NATO
  USSR
  USSR
  USSR (LEARNED SOCIETY CONTACTS)
  USSR (LEARNED SOCIETY CONTACTS)
  DUNDEE
  DUNDEE
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
  CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
  TUC
  TUC
  STEEL INDUSTRY
  STEEL INDUSTRY
  POSTAL SERVICES
  POSTAL SERVICES
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SECRETARIAL AND RESEARCH ASSISTANCE)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SECRETARIAL AND RESEARCH ASSISTANCE)
  DOG LICENCE
  DOG LICENCE
  ELLON
  ELLON
  RAW MATERIALS (SUPPLY)
  RAW MATERIALS (SUPPLY)
  ARMS EXPORTS
  ARMS EXPORTS
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Population
  School Population
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Universities and Polytechnics
  Universities and Polytechnics
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Service Pensions
  Public Service Pensions
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
  Dominica
  Dominica
  Uganda
  Uganda
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Chilean Refugees (Education Grants)
  Chilean Refugees (Education Grants)
EMPLOYMENT
  "Employment News"
  "Employment News"
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Tate and Lyle, Liverpool
  Tate and Lyle, Liverpool
  Urban Development Corporations (Merseyside and London)
  Urban Development Corporations (Merseyside and London)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Redundancies (Manchester)
  Redundancies (Manchester)
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Job Vacancies
  Job Vacancies
  Kirklees and Oldham
  Kirklees and Oldham
  Manpower Services Commission (Publication's)
  Manpower Services Commission (Publication's)
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
DEFENCE
  Cruise and Pershing Missiles
  Cruise and Pershing Missiles
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  United States Defence Secretary
  United States Defence Secretary
  Army Reservists
  Army Reservists
  China (Minister of Defence)
  China (Minister of Defence)
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  Arms Embargo
  Arms Embargo
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Military Staff College, Camberley
  Military Staff College, Camberley
  Naval Shipbuilding
  Naval Shipbuilding
  Mr. T. E. Charlton
  Mr. T. E. Charlton
  Conscription
  Conscription
  Chemical Warfare
  Chemical Warfare
  Munitions (Rail Carriage)
  Munitions (Rail Carriage)
  Soldiers (Radiation Poisoning)
  Soldiers (Radiation Poisoning)
  Low-level Flying
  Low-level Flying
  Hydrographer to the Royal Navy
  Hydrographer to the Royal Navy
  North Sea
  North Sea
  New Aberpour (Missile Incident)
  New Aberpour (Missile Incident)
  Royal Naval Vessels (Repairs and Refits)
  Royal Naval Vessels (Repairs and Refits)
  Spitzbergen
  Spitzbergen
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Jaguar Aircraft
  Service Personnel (Hypnotism)
  Service Personnel (Hypnotism)
  Fishing Fleet
  Fishing Fleet
  Quality Assurance Directorate, Woolwich
  Quality Assurance Directorate, Woolwich
  Air Cadet Council
  Air Cadet Council
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  Polaris
  Polaris
  Army Recruitment
  Army Recruitment
ENERGY
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  Conservation Policy
  Conservation Policy
  Power Station, Grain
  Power Station, Grain
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Oil and Gas Prices
  Oil and Gas Prices
ENERGY
  Departmental Newspapers
  Departmental Newspapers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Gas Refinery (Peter head and St. Fergus)
  Gas Refinery (Peter head and St. Fergus)
INDUSTRY
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Company Assets and Liabilities
  Company Assets and Liabilities
  Spinks Report
  Spinks Report
  Arfon and Dwyfor
  Arfon and Dwyfor
  Industrial Policy (Assessment)
  Industrial Policy (Assessment)
  Postal Union (Ballots)
  Postal Union (Ballots)
  Manufacturing and Service Businesses (Loans and Grants)
  Manufacturing and Service Businesses (Loans and Grants)
  Aluminium Foundry and Casting Plants
  Aluminium Foundry and Casting Plants
  Steel Industry (Pay Dispute)
  Steel Industry (Pay Dispute)
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Textile and Clothing Industries
  Steel Workers (Earnings)
  Steel Workers (Earnings)
SCOTLAND
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Police
  Police
  Rent Allowance
  Rent Allowance
  Social Services (Dundee)
  Social Services (Dundee)
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Prison Officers (Vacancies)
  Prison Officers (Vacancies)
  Mentally-ill Prisoners
  Mentally-ill Prisoners
  Scottish Cities
  Scottish Cities
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Public Expenditure (Education)
  Public Expenditure (Education)
  Murthly Hospital
  Murthly Hospital
  Scottish Transport Group
  Scottish Transport Group
  Bernard Wardle Everflex Factory
  Bernard Wardle Everflex Factory
WALES
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Welsh Development Authority (Factories)
  Welsh Development Authority (Factories)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  School Building
  School Building
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Local Authorities (Accounts)
  Departmental Newspapers
  Departmental Newspapers
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  Vacant Properties
  Vacant Properties
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Norfolk County Council (Manpower)
  Norfolk County Council (Manpower)
  Exchange Building, Cardiff
  Exchange Building, Cardiff
  Rates
  Rates
  British Railways (Planning Permission)
  British Railways (Planning Permission)
  Crown and County Court Accommodation
  Crown and County Court Accommodation
  Centre for Environmental Studies
  Centre for Environmental Studies
  Stress Housing Areas
  Stress Housing Areas
  Home Ownership (Mortgage Finance)
  Home Ownership (Mortgage Finance)
TRANSPORT
  Soviet Vessels (Port Facilities)
  Soviet Vessels (Port Facilities)
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Press and Public Relations Officers
  Walking Children (Protection)
  Walking Children (Protection)
  London Transport (Expenditure)
  London Transport (Expenditure)
  M3—Winchester
  M3—Winchester
NATIONAL FINANCE
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Licences)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Licences)
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Income Tax Threshold
  Income Tax Threshold
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  National Savings Stock Register
  National Savings Stock Register
  Taxes and Duties
  Taxes and Duties
  Public Sector Assets (Sales)
  Public Sector Assets (Sales)
  Taxes and Duties
  Taxes and Duties
  Estate Duty (Property in Lieu)
  Estate Duty (Property in Lieu)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Social Democratic and Labour Party
  Social Democratic and Labour Party
  Security
  Security
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Whales
  Whales
  Foreign Fishing Boats (Small Mesh Nets)
  Foreign Fishing Boats (Small Mesh Nets)
  Brambell Committee
  Brambell Committee
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  Sugar
  Sugar
TRADE
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  USSR
  USSR
  Birmingham and Midland Counties Trust
  Birmingham and Midland Counties Trust
  Anti-Dumping Complaints
  Anti-Dumping Complaints
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Obstetric Services (Fees)
  Obstetric Services (Fees)
  Residential Homes (Heating)
  Residential Homes (Heating)
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels
  National Health Service (Lotteries)
  National Health Service (Lotteries)
  Family Practitioners
  Family Practitioners
  Nurses
  Nurses
  German Measles (Immunity)
  German Measles (Immunity)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Private Health Insurance
  Private Health Insurance
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Post Office (Payment for Services)
  Post Office (Payment for Services)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Child Accident Prevention Committee
  Child Accident Prevention Committee
  Disabled Persons (Insurance)
  Disabled Persons (Insurance)
  Depo Provera
  Depo Provera
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Over-eighties (25p pension)
  Over-eighties (25p pension)
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Pregnancy (Alcohol Dangers)
  Pregnancy (Alcohol Dangers)
  Cigarettes (Lung Cancer)
  Cigarettes (Lung Cancer)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Republic of Ireland Residents (Benefits)
  Republic of Ireland Residents (Benefits)
  Fazakerly Hospital
  Fazakerly Hospital

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

BUILDING REGULATIONS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Baroness SHARPLES: 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 consultations they are having on the proposed amendments to the Building Regulations.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is at present carrying out statutory consultations on a number of
2
detailed amendments to the Building Regulations. Also, proposals for a scheme of fees for building control services have completed formal consultation and a scheme is to be introduced this year.
These measures are part of the normal process of maintaining and updating the existing Building Regulations and are without prejudice to the review of the whole present system of control over the construction of buildings. My right honourable friend outlined the possibilities for change in a speech on 10th December and asked for comments on his suggestions by the end of last month.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. On a different point, may I ask him whether he agrees that the proposed regulations dealing with the higher conservation of energy are really sufficient?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify this rather important point. It should be stressed that the Building Regulations set only minimum standards. It is entirely open to people to adopt a higher standard if they wish. Of course, my right honourable friend recognises that energy conservation is essential and he would like to see this, wherever appropriate. At the same time, while we are vigorously

3
researching the implications and costs of higher standards we are sure that it would be wrong to impose them now as mandatory measures within the penal code.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that contractors and others will build to higher insulation standards? Surely the only people who are likely to do this are those who are getting their own private houses built, which is a negligible number?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, only time will tell. The fact that there are to be higher minimum standards will have a general upgrading effect. It has always been so (has it not?) that if you start with required lower standards the degree above that tends to be lower than where the obligatory standards are higher, and I think it is reasonable to expect that.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is also true to say that local authorities, who despite the recent cuts in Government expenditure and assistance to local authorities, still build a larger number of houses per annum than any private developer, will always build down to the minimum standards laid down by the Government, and that this means that the cost in use of heating these houses is being laid upon the tenants who increasingly are unable to afford it? Therefore, will not the Government consider whether, in the long-term interests of energy conservation and in the short-term interests of the tenants who have to live in houses with inadequate insulation, higher standards should be laid down as a condition for local authorities to receive approval of dwelling construction?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that is why I said that the whole area is being looked at at the present time. We shall have to wait and see what is the outcome of the review. One can either accept that what the noble Lord said is correct or not. It is a matter of opinion. It does not always necessarily follow that local authorities build down to what the noble Lord referred to as the lowest standard. Certainly that is not my experience.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the time for objection
4
to two annexes to these regulations has already expired although they have only been available since the end of January and are not readily available to all? Could the noble Lord say whether the object of these regulations is a reduction in cost or an increase in safety, or whether it is an attempt to deal with some of the very special problems that have arisen in building inquiries in recent times? They appear to place rather an emphasis on reduction in cost.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it was clearly stated that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wanted to have replies to his consultation request by now, but there is no doubt that if anybody wishes to make any further observations at this time he will certainly be considered just the same. So I think that there is still opportunity if anybody would like to say anything further about it.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord's Answer, or set of answers, mean that the Government's interest in conservation is minimal?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should have thought that the very fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has initiated the particular investigation into this whole matter would have indicated quite the contrary to what the noble Lord suggests; and indeed I can assure him, if assurance he requires, that it is the intention to have this information so that one can look at ways of doing things better. I should have thought that that was what the Government ought to be concentrating on now as much as upon many other things they are doing.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken of minimum standards and higher standards, but would the Government not consider it advisable to lay down standard standards?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is rather like something that is temporary—how temporary is "temporary" and how standard is "standard"? I suppose it is all a question of whether one is buying or selling, but I think the noble Viscount may be assured that the Government are interested that there should be higher standards so far as energy conservation is

5
concerned. It is a matter that is critical for the country for all sorts of reasons which I am sure I need not explain today. So there is no intention of seeing that those standards are lowered; quite the contrary.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he thinks that the review will be completed and published?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I have said, we asked for all the observations to be in by now, and in the main, if it is of any interest to your Lordships, some 350 observations have been made. They are now being sifted carefully and, although I cannot say just which day or what time, it is a matter of some urgency. We want to see things done better and we shall certainly push on with it.

NATIONAL SERVICE AND DEFENCE REQUIREMENTS
2.46 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now restore compulsory national service.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINITRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, may I first take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord on reaching four score years. I fear my Answer may not be the present he is looking for for his birthday, because the Government do not intend to reintroduce national service. We believe that all volunteer forces are the best way of meeting our defence requirements.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind congratulations. It means at least that I cannot be called up. I should like briefly to put two questions to the noble Lord. First, on the military aspect, is it not a fact that during the past decade the Soviet Union has built up an enormous superiority over the West in conventional weapons of every kind and for every purpose; and that we watched the Germans doing just the same in the
6
1930s, with the kind of stagnant wonder with which we are doing so today? Also, is it not the fact that, without compulsory national service and the register which it would necessitate, it is quite impossible for us to expand our conventional forces to any marked extent or to build up a civil defence organisation? Without compulsory national service we cannot carry out any rapid expansion of conventional forces to meet any emergencies. Finally, on the social side, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government do not think that it would be better to send boys and girls in this country who are leaving school, for a period of good training, rather than to the labour exchanges and the streets or to prison, where far too many of them are now going?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, to do justice to those questions I should need to give a sort of wind-up answer to a defence debate. However, I will do my best. I agree with the noble Lord that the Soviet Union has built up a massive superiority in conventional weapons. That we are regarding it with stagnant wonder I would have to dispute with him and deny most hotly. We believe that unquestionably conscription would offer good training. The difficulty is that in a highly technical age, such as the armed forces are in today, we believe that professional training is required to exploit the sophisticated equipment which they are using, and we believe further that the concept of having large numbers of conscripts standing around with nothing to do, which basically would be the posture we should be in today, would be counter-productive.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that his Answer, while it was an agreeable one to my noble friend on his 80th birthday—and I should like to extend my congratulations also to an old political opponent—reveals that the Government do not understand the problem? Will the Government be good enough to look at what President Carter is doing in an election year? He is reintroducing the draft, not because he wants a large conscript army but because armed forces cannot fight unless they have balance: if you have no doctors you cannot fight, if you have no ammunition examiners you cannot fight. Modern armies need the draft in order that they

7
may get access to those scarce skills which they will not get by voluntary methods. Will he also bear in mind that it is probable that President Carter has introduced the draft in his Congress, not because of Afghanistan but because the armed forces of the United States are in crisis because they abandoned the draft prematurely?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think the first thing I should say to the noble Lord is that we must understand clearly that the United States have not introduced the draft. They have introduced a register in case they need the draft. They have a problem of recruitment far greater than ours, and I am happy to say that ours is smaller. There is no need to be smug about it. We are better placed than they are. So far as balance is concerned, while we are far from satisfied with the overall size and the equipment of our forces, their balance is satisfactory at the present time.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that this country would be better placed if for the last few years it had had, let us say, the Swiss system of national militia?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I would agree that this is a debatable question. I have already explained that we believe that, because of the sophisticated equipment which the forces use, a longer-term technical training is the best use of our resources. It is tempting to say that a register would be a useful hedge, but one has to recognise that that would cost money and would require a large amount of manpower at a time when we are trying to reduce the number of Government employees.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, do the Government not recognise that, whatever the merits or demerits of conscription, there is now in this country a very large body of opinion, as manifested in a recent debate in the other place, in favour of the organisation of some kind of voluntary national service, perhaps to start off with some extension of the Territorial Army?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should have
8
thought, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that voluntary national service was almost a contradiction in terms, as I understand it.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said he could not be called up. Is that true?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, having regard to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, would not the noble Lord agree that it is the duty of a civilised Government to find employment for its young people and not to have conscription as a substitute?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in answering this Question I am talking about conscription so far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned. I think the issue of employment is a completely separate one.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that experience in other countries belies the criticism which he made of conscription? Is he aware that in France, on a poll, 60 per cent. of those who had been conscripted said that it had done them good; 70 per cent. of the population felt that conscription was a good thing. Does it not provide cadres of older experienced soldiers which are able to expand and to teach other people when the necessity arises?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am perfectly ready to believe and concede that there are advantages in conscription. But so far as we are concerned we are totally convinced that the professional forces we have today are the right and appropriate forces for the equipment and the people that we have in this country.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the effective fighting today, in East Asia, in Afghanistan and in Africa, is being conducted not by armies with sophisticated weapons but by people who have been taught to fire a rifle? In this country only people in their late forties have even been taught to fire a rifle and our professional forces are overstrained by the activities of a few score of IRA men. While we are in that posture how can anybody take seriously

9
a decadent empire that appears to have no will to defend itself?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the empire may be decadent, but it certainly has a will to defend itself and it has a very considerable capacity so to do.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the decadent empire pays a bill—£90,000 million for defence since the end of the last war—and all we can do for it is produce the tattoo, the military tournament, and, I would agree, an effective gendarmerie in Northern Ireland, but anything else, rien?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, among other things, we are committed to providing, I think it is, 55,000 soldiers to the central front of NATO. This we do.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I wonder whether, in view of the fact that we have a long list of speakers, and we have only got through two Questions in 15 minutes, your Lordships may think it appropriate to move on.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have been talking about this subject for years when other people have kept quiet. Surely I can get a word in. I am asking a question which I think is very important. If for technical and perhaps political reasons we are unable to adopt compulsory service, can we not do more than we are doing in order to build up our reserve forces, our auxiliary forces, and at any rate bring the TAVR up to establishment? Is not that something we ought to be doing at once, doing expeditiously, doing it technically and making it effective?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, perhaps I may answer what I hope will be the last supplementary question. We did have a debate, as the noble Lord will recall, because I believe he participated in it, about the reserve forces. We do believe in building up the reserve forces. We believe we are having some success in that direction and we are in the process of implementing the recommendations of the Shapland Report.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS: WITHDRAWAL OF BENEFIT
2.57 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: 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 how many widows have had their pension books withdrawn, and how many have appealed against the decision, at the present date.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the provision under which national insurance widows' benefit ceases to be payable if the widow is living with a man as his wife. The latest 12-month period for which a figure is available is 1st July 1978 to 30th June 1979. During this period 1,104 widows had their benefit withdrawn under the provision in question following a decision of the local insurance officer. Of these widows, 177 have so far appealed to the local tribunal against the insurance officer's decision.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that it is on the suspicion of the local insurance officer that a widow's pension is withdrawn if she is thought to be cohabiting? May I ask the noble Lord, in view of the figure that he has given of the widows who are appealing, whether he is aware that even pending the appeal the widow's pension is still withdrawn and she is not allowed even supplementary benefits?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, to try to get some perspective in this matter, out of the 1,104 widows who had their benefit withdrawn, 177 appealed and 120 of those appeals failed, 44 were successful and 13 are outstanding. So we are talking about a very small minority of cases. It is well known, and the Finer Committee decided so, that this is a very difficult matter to administer. I understand what my noble friend says about benefits being withdrawn on suspicion. If either anonymously or otherwise people send in a report to the adjudicating authorities, it is the latter's duty to see

11
that these things are looked into; they cannot be ignored. We are talking in a very small minority of cases of people who are drawing benefit improperly.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, even if it is a small number of cases, for the people concerned it is a very serious matter indeed? We do not believe, do we, that the number of cases affects the justice of the issue? Would the Minister not also agree that while an appeal is pending the widow should, if not allowed pension, at least be allowed supplementary benefit?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the fact that the number of cases is small is not a particularly good defence. However, I did say that those cases are difficult to administer, and because the number is so small is perhaps some tribute to the way in which the job is carried out.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not contrary to natural justice for an action to be taken against a woman in such circumstances until the matter has been heard by a competent tribunal? In our society we do not hold people guilty until they are proved innocent; they are innocent until they are found guilty. I ask the Government really to consider the matter. Furthermore, I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible, as the noble Baroness has said, to continue the pension until such time as a tribunal has found the person guilty of this offence; and, secondly, when that person wants to appeal, whether the appeal could not be undertaken more expeditiously than it is at present.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point that the noble Lord made. Efforts are being made to accelerate the appeal procedure. I know that work is going on as regards that matter at present. I do not believe that it would be possible for the widow to continue to receive her benefit while this matter is being looked at, because, in many cases, it would go on for quite a long time, it would mean public funds being tied up, and eventually there may be some difficulty in getting the money back.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is not the local insurance officer who determines these matters himself a quasi-judicial authority in this and other matters? Moreover, does not the smallness of the numbers, to which the noble Lord referred, confirm the experience of many of us who have been involved in matters of national insurance administration that local insurance officers are singularly unwilling to take action in these cases unless they are absolutely blatant?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. That is exactly what I have been told myself and I believe that great care is taken not to pillory widows on a suspicion basis. As I have said, I think that there are but few cases, and great trouble is taken not to be unfair.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, for whose help I have been very grateful in the past. However, is it not a well-known fact that social workers know from personal experience when they are dealing with these people and helping them in their straitened circumstances, that many of them—indeed I would say the large majority of them—feel that there is no point in appealing because the decision has been made by someone and they do not stand any chance at all?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I do not quite understand why that should be so. There are many people to advise. I personally do not believe that these benefits are withdrawn unless initially the manager of the office is virtually convinced that it is right so to do.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, how can one officer on his own, without living in the house with the couple, be sure of what is going on? Surely there must be suspicion, even very strong suspicion? Secondly, is it not possible that if benefit, or certainly supplementary benefit, was payable pending appeal, the appeals might be heard rather more expeditiously?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am not sure that I know how to answer that question.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself again upon your Lordships, especially when your Lordships are in a querulous mood. However, we have spent eight minutes on the Question, and perhaps your Lordships might feel that it would be appropriate to move on.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, considering the obvious interest in your Lordships' House as regards this matter, and in view of the fact that my figures vary completely from those given by the noble Lord this afternoon, and that it takes up to 18 months for a commissioner to hear the appeals, thereby causing a great deal of distress to the woman concerned, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will please ask his right honourable friend to consider this matter in depth and with urgency?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the whole House knows what a valiant champion of the widows my noble friend is, and I shall certainly pass on what she has said to my tight honourable friend.

RENT ASSESSMENTS AND SCARCITY VALUES
3.7 p.m.
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 are aware that considerable hardship is caused, particularly to the aged whose pensions are not now linked with the rate of inflation, by the failure of rent tribunals to ignore scarcity values in making assessments of the rent to be paid; and what steps they are prepared to take to stop the exploitation of this by speculators many of whom operate from abroad.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is in fact incorrect to say that pensions are not now linked to the rate of inflation. As far as the question of rents is concerned, the statutory basis for the assessment of fair rent requires rent officers and rent assessment committees to fix a rent which does not reflect the effects of market scarcity, as has been said in your
14
Lordships' House, on more than one occasion. All the evidence suggests that market rents would be significantly higher than current fair rent levels. Furthermore, tenants are additionally protected by the system of phasing rent increases and there is a generous system of rent allowances to help those who have difficulty paying their rents.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, with which, unfortunately, so far as he is concerned, I do not agree, would he be good enough to investigate the matter properly? Is he aware that it is a sheer farce to suggest that protection is being given to people, the rateable value of whose flats or apartments is £1,500 or much less when, in fact, the machinations that are going on at present make it impossible to rent places, the result being that the speculators are making vast profits by driving out the people who come within that range? The fact is that there is no protection whatever at present. Will he please remember that similar matters arose as regards the necessity of enacting the leasehold reform Act? Moreover, similar matters have arisen with regard to the Rent Acts. Is it not time that the Government realised that scarcity value is being created by those who are increasing the rents to such an extent that there are no places to rent in these areas?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it is difficult to know quite which question, of the many that the noble Lord has asked, to answer first. Of course, he is going right across the whole spectrum of the problem of rented accommodation. With great respect, as regards scarcity it seems a little far-fetched to argue that the way to persuade more landlords to let accommodation, thus relieving scarcity, is to reduce their rental income. It is a matter of finding a balance between ensuring that there is not only the security of tenure, but the rights to pay a fair rent on the one hand, and ensuring that landlords can in fact receive at least sufficient to encourage them to rent. That is the dilemma that exists. However, I think that one can only say that the Rent Acts as they have been, and as they are now, continue to give and the Government are anxious to ensure that they continue to give—a fair return, by way of the fair

15
rent system, to the landlord, while they protect the tenant from what might become, as the noble Lords says and fears, extortionate rents.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, with the greatest respect, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that the manipulations of those who are speculating in property are of such a nature that there are no places to rent? Is he aware that that is creating a scarcity value of an enormous proportion, and that failure to observe the provisions which at present exist, relating to securing values by tribunals when assessing the rentals payable, creates a situation which dispossesses decent, reasonable people, and particularly those whose pensions are not inflation-linked? In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the whole matter.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests yet another review of the Rent Acts. That may well be a course to take, but it is a matter which has frequently been reviewed over the last few years and each time the conclusions on scarcity reached by both major political parties have been exactly the same. As I said before, it is a dilemma. How do we achieve an exact balance between the fact that landlords must have a return, otherwise the property disappears, and give proper rights to tenants to pay a fair rent? At the moment we have this system and that is how things will be unless there is a review. So far as I am aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no intention to suggest that such a review be undertaken at present.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether scarcity is not a factor in the valuation of everything?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the answer to that must be, yes; but by itself it does not get away from the other point I made, which is that it must be in the context of a total situation.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is not the real problem of scarcity in this area due to the fact that landlords, many of whom would like to let a room or two, cannot be sure of getting rid of the tenant when they want the room back? If that
16
situation was altered, would there not be plenty of flats or rooms to let, and would that not decrease the scarcity values and many of our problems?
Lord BELLWIN: That, my Lords, is quite a contributory factor, and that is why, in the Bill now in another place, there is the intention to introduce short-hold lettings. Hopefully, that will help the situation.

INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a

NEW HEBRIDES BILL [H.L.]
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
3.14 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am sure the contents of this Bill will be familiar to your Lordships. Many of you will have watched with keen interest its progress through another place. For my own part, I am particularly happy to be associated with what is the first major piece of legislation on the preservation of the national heritage for more than 30 years. This Bill, if enacted, will make a very significant contribution towards preserving our heritage; a heritage which, despite the valiant efforts of so many willing groups and individuals, is continually at risk from the ravages of time and the cheque books of wealthy overseas buyers.

17
Perhaps I should begin by making clear where responsibility for this Bill lies: it is shared equally between my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But, because its provisions extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will also be concerned. In addition, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has an interest in view of the proposals in Part II of the Bill to transfer certain responsibilities—the acceptance in lieu procedures—away from Treasury control. I shall say more about that later.
I am sure that your Lordships will know much of the background to the Bill, and I therefore intend to cover this only briefly. The Government's main proposals stem from the recommendations in the third report of the Select Committee on Expenditure (Environmental Sub-Committee) for the Session 1977–78, which dealt with the National Land Fund. This, in turn, arose from the problems the then Government faced when offered Mentmore by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. All of us who profess concern for the future of our national heritage must acknowledge the debt we owe to those in another place whose thorough and incisive investigation of the administration of heritage policy resulted in such an admirable report containing such positive recommendations.
I shall not trouble your Lordships with all those recommendations, but I should like to remind you of some of the more valuable lessons that were learnt. First, the report made clear that the Government needed to alter the way in which resources available for preserving the heritage were administered; secondly, it warned of the concern which existed in the heritage world about the central role the Treasury played in decisions on heritage policy; and, thirdly, it highlighted the complexity of the system for accepting items in satisfaction of tax and stressed the need to clarify these procedures and the National Land Fund's role in them.
With this Bill, the Government have responded most sympathetically to these recommendations. And I do not overlook the contribution of the previous
18
Government and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whose White Paper of early last year provided, with some important exceptions, much the same response as the present Bill. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the preservation of the heritage transcends party political divisions.
I turn now to the Bill itself. It has three Parts: the first provides for the establishment of a National Heritage Memorial Fund under independent trustees; the second, for the transfer of responsibility for the acceptance in lieu procedures from Treasury Ministers to my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and the third, for the establishment of a statutory basis for Government indemnity cover for loans of works of art for public benefit. Some important changes to these basic proposals have been made in another place and I shall endeavour to highlight these where appropriate.
Part I of the Bill establishes a National Heritage Memorial Fund to be administered by independent trustees. Noble Lords will be aware that it was not the Government's original intention that the word 'memorial' should appear in the fund's title; this was inserted in another place to reflect the original concept of the National Land Fund as a means of preserving tracts of outstanding scenic land as a memorial to those who gave their lives for this country in the Second World War.
The fund is intended primarily to be a source of financial assistance to those bodies wishing to acquire and preserve items of outstanding heritage quality. Although the trustees will have powers to acquire items themselves—in exceptional circumstances and only with the express permission of Ministers—it is not intended that this should be the normal practice; the Government do not expect the trustees to go into the business of running country houses or to set up their own museums or galleries.
The initiative will, therefore, lie with the wide range of non-profit-making bodies eligible for assistance—museums and galleries, both national and local, the

19
National Trusts, preservation trusts, bodies concerned with the conservation of nature and other similar institutions. It will be for them to identify items of heritage quality and approach the trustees for help. Provided the trustees are satisfied that an item is of sufficient merit, they will be able to offer a grant or loan to help with its acquisition and preservation. The level of assistance will be a matter for the trustees to decide case by case, but, while the Government would expect most bodies to be able to make a contribution from their own funds towards an acquisition, we recognise that there may be instances—perhaps where small preservation trusts are concerned—where 100 per cent. grants or loans will be needed. The Bill allows for such cases.
The trustees will be able to impose any conditions they think fit on the grants and loans they offer. These could, for instance, relate to the need to return a work of art to the setting with which it is historically associated—perhaps an important country house; or to the level of public access which is appropriate—including restrictions on public access, if this is thought necessary as in the case of a nature reserve, or to the maintenance and care of property acquired with the help of the fund.
My Lords, you will have noted that this Bill contains no strict definition of the national heritage. This is quite deliberate. In the Government's view the national heritage is a somewhat elusive concept, which defies exact description. Rather than run the risk of excluding items by drawing too narrow a statutory definition, we have elected to leave it to the trustees to judge what can or cannot be considered part of the heritage, bearing in mind the broad guidelines contained in the Bill.
It will be clear from what I have already said, that the trustees will be given a great deal of freedom under the terms of the Bill, summed up by the term "unfettered discretion" coined by my honourable friend Mr. Hector Monro, during a debate in another place. They will be able to decide what constitutes part of the heritage, they will be able to decide on the level of assistance that is appropriate, and they will be able to attach such conditions to grants as they see fit. Further, the fund will receive its resources in the
20
form of a grant at the beginning of the financial year—in advance of proof of need, which, as your Lordships will know, is a departure from the normal arrangement with public expenditure. Furthermore, the trustees will be able to retain any unspent balances at the end of the year for investment and expenditure in the later years, and they will be able to accept gifts and bequests from private sources and invest these, constrained only by the Trustee Investments Act.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the trustees will require guidance on their work. For this reason they will be required to consult expert bodies—for instance, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Historic Buildings Councils—about help they intend to offer. However, the fund will not be beyond the control of Parliament. Each year the trustees will be required to prepare an annual report and accounts, which will be scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament.
There are two other points I want to mention with regard to Part I of the Bill. First, there is the question of the resources that will be made available to the fund. For the coming financial year, the Government have decided to provide a sum broadly equivalent to the balance in the National Land Fund—expected to be some –15·5 million—for both the National Heritage Memorial Fund and for expenditure on acceptance in lieu. In practice, this will mean upwards of £12 million for the new fund. This is not as large a sum as the Government would have liked but, given our straitened financial circumstances, neither is it a paltry or ungenerous one; and, properly invested, this capital should provide sufficient income for the trustees to discharge their responsibilities. In future years, the Government are proposing that some £5·5 million per year will be made available and divided between the trustees and acceptance in lieu. We sincerely hope that, as the fund becomes established, these public monies will be supplemented by private funds.
I think I should make clear at this point that the Government recognise that there may be cases which will outstrip the resources of the fund—perhaps a major house and collection. In this case, we would not expect the trustees to cope

21
but would have to consider how we could respond directly to the specific situation. The second matter is the appointment of the trustees—a subject which I know will attract the close attention of your Lordships. I must say at once that no decisions on this have been taken, but I can tell the House that my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are now urgently considering a list of possible names—and I can assure your Lordships that there is no shortage of high calibre candidates. Our intention is that the trustees should not be experts or specialists—they will, after all, be required to seek expert advice—but should have a wide general knowledge of the arts and the heritage. The trustees will include people connected with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the appropriate territorial Ministers will be consulted about appointments.
Lastly on this part of the Bill, my Lords, you will be aware that it is the Government's wish to bring the fund into operation as soon as possible after 1st April 1980. To do so it will be necessary for this House to deal with it expeditiously. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will be sparing with your amendments.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill—the transfer of responsibility for acceptance in lieu from the Treasury to the Department of the Environment and the Office of Arts and Libraries. Your Lordships will recall that it was the proposal by the previous Government to do away with these procedures that led to such disquiet in the arts world, and as a result, the Government resolved to retain the system as part of their plans for preserving the heritage. It seems desirable, however, that the Ministers directly concerned with the heritage should, in future, be responsible for decisions on the acceptance of items in satisfaction of tax. This involves my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment taking over these responsibilities from the Treasury. This necessitates placing financial responsibility with these Ministers and reimbursement—of which I will say more in a moment—will in future be borne equally on the Votes of the Department of the Environment and the Office of Arts and Libraries.
22
I think at this stage I must attempt to explain—briefly I hope—the present working of the in lieu system. It is possible for owners of heritage property, who have a capital transfer tax debt, to offer to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue a work of art, a manuscript, a piece of land, a building or other heritage item in satisfaction of that tax. At present the decision on whether the item should be accepted is taken by Treasury Ministers, who first assure themselves—by recourse to expert advisers—that the item is of sufficient quality. And this means it must pass a stringent quality test. If accepted, the value of the item is then offset against the tax liability; and the Treasury reimburse the Inland Revenue from the National Land Fund for the amount of tax they have foregone.
This question of reimbursement is, my Lords, a controversial issue. I do not wish to become bogged down at this stage with a detailed explanation of why reimbursement must take place. But your Lordships will realise that the heritage cannot have unlimited resources placed at its disposal, and that taxation foregone is a use of resources. Without reimbursement, it would be impossible to quantify heritage expenditure, and public expenditure priorities could be seriously distorted. When we come to Committee stage, I will, if necessary, provide a further explanation—but for the moment let me make quite clear that reimbursement is necessary and the Government are absolutely commited to continuing the practice.
As I have already said, under this Bill responsibility for acceptance in lieu will pass from the Treasury to the Department of the Environment and the Office of Arts and Libraries, and reimbursement of the Inland Revenue will be borne equally on their Votes. The decision will still be taken on the basis of expert advice—although perhaps from a wider spectrum of advisers than at present—and, while we would expect the Secretary of State for the Environment to take the lead where land, houses and contents are concerned, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster where works of art are involved, decisions will be joint ones. Although reimbursement will come only from the Department of the Environment and the Office of Arts and Libraries, the territorial Ministers will, of course, have

23
a decisive voice in cases involving items in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There is one point on acceptance in lieu to which I would draw your Lordships' special attention; it is the question of leaving items in their historic settings. Much has been said and written about the damage which is done to the heritage if historical items are removed from the houses with which they have a long association, and as the Government have made clear in another place, we are fully sensible of this problem. As far as acceptance in lieu is concerned, there are two issues: first, whether an item may be accepted because of a particular association with a setting; and secondly, whether it can be allowed to remain in that setting once it has been accepted. The first of these raises no problems; there is no doubt whatsoever that items can be accepted because they are pre-eminent in a particular setting, be it a country house or private museum. The Government are therefore taking steps to publicise this interpretation of existing legislation. But we are opposed to diluting the qualitative test by amending the word "pre-eminent". This would make it extremely difficult to maintain a consistent standard and could seriously threaten the viability of the in lieu system.
As to allocating items to their original settings, I would draw the attention of your Lordships to an amendment made by the Government in another place to Clause 9 of the Bill. It is now quite clear from Clause 9(5) that, where it is appropriate for items to remain in their setting, this will be given full consideration by the Ministers concerned. I believe this is a very significant step forward in our fight to preserve the heritage for public benefit.
I now turn to Part III of the Bill, which deals with indemnities and was much amended by the Government in another place. Your Lordships will, I think, be aware that the Government bear their own risk for items lent to them as do national museums and galleries which are supported totally or mainly through monies provided by Parliament. Thus, loans to these institutions were already covered; but loans from them to, say, a local museum or gallery, were not covered, unless the latter undertook to insure or indemnify
24
the object. This clearly discouraged the wider display of works of art and other heritage items and for some time the Government have operated, on a non-statutory basis, an indemnity scheme so that in appropriate cases such loans could be covered.
As originally published, Part III of the Bill merely provided statutory backing for a slightly expanded version of the present informal arrangements. The thinking behind this was that, while the Government could justifiably cover loans by or to national bodies directly and largely funded by Parliament, from which considerable public benefit would derive, it was not appropriate for the Government to enter the "commercial" insurance market by offering cover for the many small loans between local museums and private bodies, where, arguably, public benefit would be small. However, the view of the heritage world was strongly that a more flexible scheme was needed which at least gave Ministers the opportunity to provide indemnities in a wide variety of circumstances. After discussion, the Government determined to amend the Bill, even though the costs of such a scheme could be higher and the contingent liability is certainly greater.
Thus, as the Bill now stands, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland may at their discretion and with the approval of the Treasury, offer indemnity cover for a variety of loans. It will now be possible to indemnify loans from national museums and galleries to other nationals, from nationals to locals and vice versa, from nationals and locals to private bodies and individuals and vice versa—I think that includes everybody—provided that the Government are satisfied that public access to the item will be facilitated or that the loans will contribute to understanding and appreciation of the item. Clearly, too, the security arrangements of the borrower would have to be scrutinised and declared satisfactory.
These are very flexible terms indeed and I can assure your Lordships that the Government did not agree them lightly. It follows, therefore, that the administration of these powers must be stringent so that the scheme is not stifled by over-

25
application. I would therefore like briefly to say a few words about how the scheme will be run. I must first make quite clear that the costs of the scheme will be met from within existing resources. This means there will be no new army of civil servants processing applications and, if there is a flood of requests, each will have to take its turn.
It is proposed that there should be an upper limit (an indicative rather than an inflexible one) on the total amount at risk at any one time, so that the Government and Parliament can be aware of the contingent liability. And because the Government are agreeing to share some of the costs of loans, it is proposed that consideration should also be given to whether a share of any financial benefit which is derived should be taken by the Government. The circumstances in which this might arise are perhaps few, but one might envisage, for example, a loan for a special exhibition at a country house where there was a clear and identifiable income to the owner of the house as a result of the loan.
While it will be the normal practice to grant indemnity cover where loans involving the national museums and galleries are concerned, I must stress that there will be nothing automatic about indemnities for other loans. Each will be considered on its merits and, only if it is clear that substantial public benefit would be derived, will cover be provided. In deciding on these questions, the Ministers concerned will seek the advice of experts—such as the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and, in appropriate cases, the Historic Buildings Councils.
Despite the stringent application of the scheme, the Government believe that it will bring substantial benefits to the heritage. It will, for example, in appropriate circumstances, enable items which are accepted in satisfaction of tax to be allocated to, say, a local museum and then lent back to a house with which it has significant historic association. And—again where the circumstances are right—it will allow indemnification of private loans to local museums and galleries which may well result in the museums being given the first option on a sale and thus reduce the risk of items being sold overseas.
26
I think your Lordships will agree that this is an important step forward.
My Lords, I have spoken long enough and I am very pleased that many others in all parts of the House are to contribute to the debate; and, in particular, I look forward to hearing the two maiden speeches. This Bill is a major step forward in the preservation of the heritage. It provides the framework for a wide and flexible heritage policy on which this and future Governments will wish to build. And I would hope that, having looked at the Bill in detail, your Lordships will give it their blessing in time for the National Heritage Memorial Fund to be set up as soon as possible, certainly by the beginning of the next financial year. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
3.40 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, first I owe the House an explanation. For some reason—perhaps a temporary lapse of memory on someone's part on the way here—I seem to have got myself on the list of speakers as a Front Bench spokesman. I want to make it quite plain to the House that I am now footloose and fancy free on the Back Benches, and therefore anything that I may say this afternoon is my idea and my suggestion; I am not necessarily speaking for all my colleagues.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: We are very happy to have you here.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure you are. We welcome this Bill. It has had general welcome, and will have general welcome from all sides of the House. That is evident from the list of speakers, and, like the noble Lord opposite, I am delighted to see that there are to be two maiden speeches to which we are all looking forward with interest. The two noble Baronesses will know that they will have the support of the House, in its usual friendly manner, when they make their maiden speeches.
I believe that the detailed consideration which the Bill received in another place has produced a better Bill for our consideration.

27
I am not quite sure about the amendment to the Long Title, which could be interpreted as implying a memorial to the heritage that we have already lost; and since it will no doubt be referred to in general as the Heritage Fund, I think perhaps that the addition of the word "Memorial" is a little superfluous, but I appreciate that it is a way of reminding us all of what was in the mind of the late Hugh Dalton when he established the National Land Fund.
I am particularly concerned that the fund should be used to help the owners of some of our smaller historic houses to dispose of them to the State when they can no longer afford to care for them, and I equally believe that the quality of our landscape should also be preserved. But could not the Department of the Environment, or the Countryside Commission, or some similar body establish a national plan as to what stretches of countryside or coastline, not yet in public or National Trust ownership, should be identified and should be closely watched so that they can be prevented from being sold for purposes that are against the public interest and spoil the landscape?
I know, also, that there is still concern that archaeology is not specifically mentioned in Clause 3, on the basis, I believe, that it is covered by the reference to items of outstanding historic or scientific interest. But I am concerned that some of our industrial archaeology may disappear for ever. I accept that we cannot hope to save every mill or furnace, but they are an integral part of our history as an industrial nation, and I hope that this fund will be available to draw upon to save the outstanding mills of Lancashire and Yorkshire or further examples of engineering triumphs, such as Ironbridge and achievements like that.
I am not sure that the procedure for leaving items in situ has really been tightened up enough. It is referred to in Clause 9, but I wonder whether there should also be a reference in Clause 12 to the acceptance procedures, making it clear that where an item has a significant association with a particular place, it should be accepted under Clause 12 and should remain in situ.
What advice will be given to the trustees? My noble friend Lady Birk
28
suggested in the past that we ought to have a list of houses, places, paintings, furniture, et cetera which we have an absolute duty to preserve for the nation. Will the trustees, or any other body set up to advise the Department of the Environment or the Minister for the Arts, be asked to earmark the most important examples of our heritage in their settings with, possibly, a second list showing the geographical regional distribution and perhaps starring the prime examples that ought to be saved? Unless, and until, the nation as a whole becomes more prosperous we will not be able to afford to keep every 18th century building either in private or public hands. But if such a list were to be prepared, the trustees would have to hand some guide for a national or regional plan. I am not suggesting that they should take any action on any of these properties unless they were not being properly maintained and cared for, or unless they were likely to come up for sale.
What guidance will the trustees be given so that they can publicise far and wide the fact that any owner of a historic property, a beautiful stretch of coastline or countryside, or the possessor of a national work of art should always approach the Heritage Fund trustees before going to the open market? I accept that in very many cases it is likely that the trustees may not feel able to recommend the purchase, either because it is a duplication within a region, or because they feel that the particular work of art is less important to the regional or national heritage. But we need variety, especially in our buildings. We need our Castle Howards, our Blenheims, our Cragsides. But we also need the smaller historic houses of different periods to show our national genius over the centuries. We shall have to accept that there will be some casualties if the private owners, the National Trust, and local or national government cannot afford to maintain everything; and so we accept that the trustees will have to be selective.
The Government could also look for sensible suggestions in respect of running and maintenance costs, and at the capital gains tax law in respect of present and future funds required for continuous maintenance. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will go back to his officials and whether they will study the

29
absolute and conditional exemption under Section 29 of the Finance Act 1965, which has been superseded by the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979. Will they also look at Section 76 of the Finance Act 1976, which has now been superseded by Section 147 of the Capital Gains Tax Act? If owners are discouraged from selling their magnificent settings or parks with their historic houses—due to tax problems—those settings or parks can be lost for ever, and it is the national heritage that will be the loser.
As I understand it, the district valuer considers the exemption of land which is exempt under the provision of Section 101 of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979, which relates to a residence and the land necessary for its reasonable enjoyment. But there is also a provision in the Finance Act 1976, and extended to the Capital Gains Tax Act by Section 147 of that Act, which provides for the conditional exemption of land essential for the protection of the character and the amenities of a building outstanding by reason of its historical or architectural interest. This type of claim is the one which is considered by the Historic Buildings Council. So the exemption is very well covered where there is an actual transfer on a death, or between willing parties, but on a private treaty sale to the Department of the Environment, or to the National Trust, the vendor takes all the benefit of the first exemption, but under the Treasury arrangement only 10 per cent. of the second one.
The fund and the acceptance in lieu system must be seen in perspective with the larger scene. Both of them are part of the heritage's safety net. With only £12 million plus of capital at the outset, with no income grant for 1980–81 in the fund, and only £3 million for acceptance in lieu for that year, it is a very fragile safety net, as well as an essential one. So more money would help, and any cuts would be extremely serious. So promises that were made in another place in this respect must be kept in so far as the acceptance in lieu is concerned. It is good to have had already firm assurances that the fund will be put into the list (in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975), so that gifts to it will be fully exempt of capital transfer tax, and it will be allowed to make private treaty purchases involving the douceur.
30
But what is needed most of all is budget action to build confidence in the conditional exemption system, logically to improve and extend the maintenance fund system, and to adjust the other taxes affecting the heritage. We might ask the noble Lord opposite to put pressure on the Chancellor to consider this when he is looking at his Budget proposals for next month.
We need to have guidelines laid down as to the procedure for negotiations and just the sheer mechanics of running the scheme administratively. There has to be a close relationship between the two Ministers and their departments; there has to be a sympathetic Treasury; and there is an Inland Revenue involvement. What advice is going to be available to the trustees? Will the Historic Buildings Council give guidance as to the setting? Will it be the Historic Buildings Council who will give advice as to grants? The Treasury is obviously going to be involved in capital gains where the "in lieu" procedure obtains, and the Inland Revenue are at present involved if it is an outright purchase. All these bodies must be brought together at a very early stage of the negotiations.
Then, too, if we are proceeding with this scheme, should there not also be a panel of district valuers who become real experts in this field and can work to acceptable standards everywhere? I must confess that I have a personal interest in Baddesley Clinton, since the Department of the Environment agreed to enter into negotiations to purchase the house, in its setting, with its contents, just before I left office, and Treasury approval had then been obtained. These negotiations, I understand, are still proceeding, but some lessons might be learned from them; in particular, the question of the setting of the building. In the case of Baddesley, which is one of only two unaltered moated manor houses in the country, only six acres of parkland were allowed as the setting: yet, in the same area, a Victorian house, which had been blighted by M.40 proposals, was purchased by the Department of the Environment and 17-odd acres were considered appropriate in addition to the 3-plus acres in respect of that house. The yardstick obviously shortened very much in the case of Baddesley, and I understand that the

31
further North you travel the greater is the acreage allowed for the purposes of the setting. My suggestion of a panel of valuers might prevent these glaring inequalities.
I think it is also imperative that the trustees should produce a brochure, a booklet or something easy to assimilate and to read, on the administrative procedure, which should be made available to future applicants to the fund, explaining what is and who are going to be involved in the negotiations concerned. No procedure has yet been laid down, and, as far as the owner of Baddesley is concerned, he had to find his own way through an absolute labyrinth of Government departments. Sometimes speed will be absolutely essential, and guidelines such as I have suggested could help to hasten the negotiations. With Baddesley, those negotiations have now been going on for almost a year, and they are still proceeding; but informal talks on Baddesley were proceeding for six years before that. Not only might some owners lose heart and sell privately if there is that sort of delay; they might even die before we get round to negotiating. I think we ought to express our appreciation to Mr. Ferrers Walker and his family, who have been involved in the Baddesley negotiations, for the patience and tolerance they have shown, and are still showing, during this period of negotiations.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it might be to the convenience of the noble Baroness and the House if I tell your Lordships that the negotiations have been completed, and the Government and the owners' solicitors are now involved in drawing up the final hand-over documents.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was aware of that but I was choosing my words with care because there has been no public announcement about it, and as far as I know the actual contract has not yet been signed, so the negotiations are proceeding. I hope the department are going to look back on Baddesley to see what happened, how it was all dealt with and who was involved, in order that they can learn some administrative lessons from that and make life easier for the trustees and for future applicants in similar cases.
32
My Lords, I was delighted to read that in the course of the debate in another place the question was raised of occasionally too much public access destroying the very gem that we are seeking to preserve. Many of our smaller country houses and manor houses cannot cope with a massive degree of public access, and I was grateful for the assurance in the other place that the trustees, or whoever is in charge of the property, will have total authority to exclude and limit visitors as well as to include and admit them. I think, again, Baddesley would be a fair example of a smaller property which could be destroyed if too many people traipsed around it day after day.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to say that I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that it has general support from all sides of the House. It shows concern for the whole of our heritage, for our coastline, for our countryside, for our gardens, parks and buildings, and for their contents and treasures. I am sure it is a measure that is going to find general support and acceptance on all sides of the House, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will be proved right in his assumption that it will not be very long before it is on the statute book.
3.56 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I have little to say on this Bill at this stage save to give it the warmest possible welcome on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches. Naturally, I would wish at once to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for explaining the broad implications of the Bill, and some of the details of its proposed working, so very succinctly and so clearly. I would also wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for underlining some crucial points, and perhaps doubts, in her own inimitably clear and perceptive manner—doubts which I think we all have to bear in mind. In particular, I would underline what she had to say about the need to preserve some of the elements of our industrial archaeology, scattered about, perhaps, in parts of the country in the North, which are not at once recognisable as places worthy of preservation but which, frankly, I think need very careful thought. One can wander about the Pennines and see strewn around the history and origins of

33
the wealth of our nation, and many of those elements, I think, need to be looked at with very great care.
With regard to the broad principles underlying the Bill—namely, the need for us to make every possible effort to preserve our national heritage in the broadest possible sense of those words—I am of course absolutely delighted to learn, as I did learn from a very full reading of all the debates in another place, that the Bill was received in a fine ecumenical spirit in another place with, as the noble Lord said, virtually no difference whatsoever appearing between the parties, and, as is perhaps rather more rare, with no differences displayed even within the parties. That apparently universal recognition of the need to preserve our national heritage surely augers well for the future of so many beautiful things and places which in reality belong to the past but which must be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations, and I am certain that noble Lords in this House will display a similar degree of unanimity as did another place, although, of course, that is rather less rare here than down the corridor, if I may say so.
Perhaps I may now briefly draw attention to one or two points which I think will need careful watching as the Bill proceeds and, indeed, as the scheme comes into force. First, a word or two with regard to finance—and I am very glad that the noble Lord in fact concentrated on this point and reassured us in many ways. It is surely essential that the trustees should have at their disposal funds which are adequate to enable them to accomplish the immense task with which they will be faced. I should not like to think that they will be put constantly in the position of having to make judgments as between this, that or the other property, all of which in reality require preservation—judgments which might be difficult, which might be embarrassing and which, in the long run, perhaps, might not be for the good of the fund.
My Lords, how right we are, I am sure—the authors of the Bill, the noble Lord and those Ministers in another place who have explained the Bill's contents—to concentrate some of our attention on the use of fiscal measures in order to preserve essential elements of our national heritage. We live in a world
34
nowadays in which it is not possible always to get people to do things in the national interest by telling them to do them, by legislating that they should do them or merely by persuasion. We are not in a world now in which many people can automatically afford to make grand gestures by bestowing land and their own personal property on the nation for preservation. We must, I think, make a proper use of fiscal measures.
Declaring an interest as the chairman of the Countryside Commission, I have been involved in these matters in the past, with the obligation from time to time to advise the Treasury on the possible abatement or remission of capital transfer tax in connection with estates, properties and areas of landscape and countryside in which there is a national interest in terms of visual amenity or access or other matters. It is not always an easy duty, particularly when one has had to look at the statutes under which we have had to operate hitherto, and under which we have to judge and to certify that certain land and landscape is of "outstanding" scenic beauty.
It seems to me that the word "outstanding" implies some regard for the context in which a particular property stands. An area of countryside surrounding, say, a great estate in the midst of the brick pits in Bedfordshire might be outstanding, and is outstanding; but if one were able to lift it bodily and deposit it in the heart of the Lake District National Park, then, perhaps, it would not be quite so outstanding. I think it necessary when making these judgments to make them in the context in which a particular property lies. Therefore, I hope that the trustees, in working this fund, will be enabled to take the most liberal possible interpretation of their duties rather than having to operate with fixed, rigid criteria.
Next, my Lords, I am delighted that it has been made absolutely clear by Ministers in another place and by the noble Lord today that land and landscape beauty is surely covered under the fund and under the Bill. I welcome the assurance given in another place, and repeated in other words by the noble Lord today, that the trustees will be what were called in the other place "cultured generalists". I would not for a moment wish to criticise those so besotted—and I use the term

35
without any implied criticism—with love, and deep love, of pictures, period furniture, early porcelain, silver, glass and the like. On the contrary, I believe that those people, particularly with their individual and precise preoccupation with certain articles, have focussed attention on elements and items of immense beauty and importance and have enabled the national conscience to be alerted to dangers which have arisen in regard to them. Those people have rendered a great service. Indeed, I could hardly say otherwise, if I may declare yet another interest, with a wife who has what she is pleased to describe as an antique business; although I am bound to tell your Lordships that antiques are not so much a business as a disease, and those who acquire this contagion, acquire it with a total disregard of normal business criteria, merely in their determination somehow to preserve beautiful things. Thank heaven for the presence of those people and, indeed of so many of those people throughout our nation!
It has been rather sad to see so many beautiful things exported from our country to other places; although I am bound to say that, from my own experience recently, it has neen a pleasure to see that those items taken away by the "shippers", as they are called in the trade, carried away on lorries and transported across the Atlantic, on the whole, nowadays, seem to me to consist of things most of which I am happy to see the back of. It is interesting also to note that with the pound now riding high many of the better things and early pieces of period furniture which disappeared—and far more pieces of Hepplewhite went across the Atlantic than Hepplewhite ever dreamed of—some of the genuine ones, I am happy to say, are now returning here. That is pleasurable news. I hope that they will remain here.
But, returning again to the subject of landscape—and we have referred to "cultured generalists" as trustees—it is necessary that the trustees should be aware of all the different elements of our national heritage, but it is also essential that landscape should not be disregarded. One hopes that among the trustees there will be people who have a genuine, well-known renowned interest in countryside matters—and I do not say, necessarily,
36
representatives of the Countryside Commission. That will be taken care of (as it often is) by the National Trust and by many others who have demonstrated their love for this crucial part of our national heritage, our countryside and its beautiful landscape. That is something which, if we lose it, is very difficult to get back again. That does not return across the Atlantic when the pound rides high. Once gone, it has gone virtually for ever.
A final point, which I think was underlined by the noble Lord and perhaps referred to by the noble Baroness, is this. I should like to say it to emphasise, in my personal view, the need for the trustees constantly to consider the desirability of maintaining properties as a whole. I make no criticism of the wonderful efforts made by bodies like the National Trust who have preserved some fine houses which I have visited with great pleasure. But sometimes it is sad to see that some of them have had to be furnished and stocked almost totally with imported articles, of great beauty and value, loaned by great galleries, by generous people or acquired in a number of ways. Surely the experience of visiting these places is immeasurably enriched if they are, to as great an extent as possible, as they originally were, and if they still contain the things which were virtually born with them. And that applies to the land surrounding them. It is unpleasant to see a great house and its parkland, with the parkland getting nibbled away on the outskirts and with the countryside and agricultural land surrounding it also gradually being nibbled away and allowed to sink into some form of degradation and deterioration. Let us try to preserve, so far as possible, the elements of our national heritage as a whole; the contents, the surroundings and the environment in which they are placed.
I am reminded by my noble friend of a place that I have often visited, a great house which is not such a great house in itself, the former home of Ruskin, Brant-wood, on the eastern shores of Coniston. What impresses me about visiting that delightful place is that the things in it, which are not unique in themselves, are genuinely the articles which were in it when it was occupied by Ruskin. Also, the land surrounding it, largely as a result of the Lake District National Parks Planning Board and the National Trust, has remained almost precisely as it was

37
when the house was originally in the occupancy of Ruskin himself. I make that point as an example. I hope that the trustees will tend to think generally in that way of the need to preserve units as a whole, their contents with them, their surroundings and their environment.
Finally I make a brief apology. Early this evening I have an engagement, not totally unconnected with our national heritage, which might make it necessary for me to miss the noble Lord's reply. I shall do what I can to remain. Perhaps if noble Lords are more disciplined than I am and speak for shorter periods than I have spoken, it might be possible for me to be here throughout. I shall look forward with great interest to the two maiden speeches that we are to hear and to hearing in this debate other noble Lords who have immense experience and expertise in this field. This, I think, is a happy day for our nation. I would finally wish this Bill godspeed and good luck and hope that it finds its way on to the statute book as soon as possible, because our national heritage is still disappearing at an alarming rate and the sooner we have adequate arrangements to protect it, surely, the better.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, it is the greatest privilege for me to make my maiden speech on a subject with which I am passionately concerned. I must declare an interest because my brother is the owner of an historic house. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for mentioning his wife. Perhaps here I might just speak for one moment and thank those many wives, and recognise them, who look after our beautiful houses throughout the country. They are not just the chatelaines, but they are very often cook, nanny, gardener, et. al. That having been said, I wholeheartedly welcome the National Heritage Bill which I believe is the single most important step taken by any Government in the preservation and conservation of our cultural and historic inheritance.
The Government have decided to appoint trustees to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I welcome very much the addition of the word "memorial" because it will
38
remind us that this is a memorial to those who fell in the last war. Many of the older ones among us know of the letters that we received from people, loved ones, fighting in the desert or in Normandy who thought about this beautiful country. So I think it is perhaps the most perfect title that we can have to have inserted the word "memorial". I also hope, on a slightly more mundane base, that it might mean that some people thought it would be a good idea to give or leave money to this memorial and thereby help us to preserve even more.
My Lords, I wish this Bill every possible success. I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues for finding parliamentary time for this measure, and for so carefully taking note of the wishes and needs of those most directly involved with the care of the very heart of our civilisation. I should also like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment, and all those at Westminster and outside who have given so much of their time and energies to what I believe to be a most noble and patriotic cause.
I found it particularly sensitive that pre-eminent works of art, major historic houses and, as has been mentioned this afternoon particularly, land of outstanding scenic beauty, can still be accepted by the State in lieu of capital taxes. However, I should like to speak this afternoon particularly about my special concern for smaller manor houses. This has already been mentioned; but some of these smaller manor houses are unsuitable for opening in the ordinary sense; maybe it will be a question of special permission. However, I believe that their need is very great. They may not contain great works of art, but in their own way they are a vital facet of our national inheritance.
With your permission, my Lords, I should just like to read four lines:
"The people who own works of art are not all rich. Some own only one picture. Others exist, hanging on by the skin of their teeth, in the smaller country houses and manor houses, with their precious possessions which have been in the family for centuries".
That was from a speech on the arts by my late husband, Airey Neave, in another place in 1974. So it gives me special

39
pleasure to feel that I am this afternoon perhaps continuing what he started at that time.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords, we both took great pleasure, as many of you, my Lords, might do, in visiting the chateaux of the Loire. I particularly remember one visit when we had been to that lovely chateau Azay-le-Rideaux which is perhaps the most furnished of the French chateaux, and we drove on full of enthusiasm. As we went along, we saw a little chateau or manor house with a drive up to it. It looked very beautiful and we saw a notice saying that it was open that day to the public.
Alas! When we arrived there it turned out to be a mirage, for it was rapidly falling into decay and was in a very advanced state of desolation. But having got as far as that, we thought that we would go on. We rang an ancient clanging bell and were taken by an old crone down dank passages until we came to the only room which appeared to be on show. It was in fact what had been the salon, and there were signs of beautiful plaster work; otherwise there was just one darkened picture over the mantelpiece and a few chairs which had been beautiful but which were in rags. However, there was one of those cords that we are accustomed to seeing in English houses which rope off those pieces of furniture which should not be touched by visitors, or chairs which should not be sat upon. But in this case behind the cord there was a table and two very ancient French gentlemen and two very ancient French ladies, dressed in black, playing cards. They paid no attention to us, and we were the only visitors.
It was a pathetic sight and we left that house saddened and determined that we would do all in our power to see that such a thing should not happen in this country. I believe it was with that at the back of his mind that my husband spoke six years ago, and I this afternoon have the privilege of speaking to you, my Lords.
However, although this Bill is a great step forward, I think that there are certain things that we have to consider. One is the trouble of repairs. These have
40
already been mentioned this afternoon. Of course, there is always the great problem of VAT. I know that this is a great difficulty; I am a committed European and I know that there are great arguments for taxes being paid in this way. However, I think that it is a terrible thing with ancient monuments that their owners who are striving to keep the place in repair are thinking to themselves, "If we leave it a few more years it will be that much more expensive". I plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something about VAT for the historic houses and all historic monuments.
If this proves to be very difficult, I believe that there are other methods which could be recommended, such as a listed building repair allowance. I very much hope that something will be thought of to ease this problem, because otherwise the small manor houses in particular, which are unable to open and perhaps to insure their contents, will have very great problems in the period in front of us. I know from experience that if you do not do something to a roof fairly quickly, it can be a question of having to put up an umbrella over the bed.
May I now turn to the provisions in the Bill for indemnifying works of art which have been mentioned by several of your Lordships this afternoon, including the noble Lord the Minister. It is a very interesting idea that it may be a possibility, under this indemnification, that pictures or furniture might be returned to the houses from which they came. I remember the fascination of being shown around a house by someone who was obviously the owner but was incognito, and seeing on the wall a picture with exactly the same kind of face, and hearing what that person did or how he built a certain wing.
I believe that there is great importance in works of art being returned in situ, if possible, and that is a very splendid idea which has been put forward with great lucidity this afternoon. It would be wonderful if this method of indemnifying works of art made it possible for there to be exhibitions up and down the country. People in other parts of the country, as well as foreign visitors, would then be able to see great loan exhibitions staged elsewhere, rather than in our capital city of London, with its very serious overcrowding.

41
I should, of course, be very glad if many of our historic houses could be included in this category. All of them will be helped in so many ways by this Bill, and I should like to renew my congratulations to all those, of all political parties, who have contributed so much to its success.
4.23 p.m.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, it is a real privilege to be allowed to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, on her maiden speech, which was so perceptive, so stimulating, so interesting and, at times, so moving. It is also a very exceptional pleasure to me personally, because her husband was one of my oldest friends and our friendship went back to our schooldays together. I only wish that he could have been here this afternoon to listen to her. How proud he would have been of her—as proud as we are delighted to have her among us. I hope that she will deliver speeches on many and varied subjects. We shall benefit greatly if she will. Before I address myself to the Bill, may I just apologise for a very long-standing engagement which I feel I must not cut, and which may necessitate my leaving before the end of the debate. I shall read with great attention the reports of the speeches that follow my departure.
I must declare a most direct interest in the Bill that we are debating, for I am chairman of the National Trust and, clearly, the Bill touches the Trust very closely. Let me, of course, say at once that I welcome the Bill unequivocally. It is a good Bill, putting to rights a matter that had gone shamefully wrong. It is an improvement on the White Paper which was issued towards the end of 1978, and which itself was an immense advance on anything that had gone before. But the Bill is an improvement in that it retains, the in lieu procedures—though, alas! without dispensing with the need to reimburse the Inland Revenue for tax foregone. Never mind, my Lords. Perhaps one could not really have expected it in present circumstances. By using the word "may" in Clause 8, the Bill leaves it open to change that procedure one day in the future. Incidentally, the split system—acceptance in lieu—which is envisaged here will be exceptionally complex to run and I hope that it will be run in very close
42
consultation with the trustees. I note that if it does not work very well, it can be unified at a later date.
It is particularly good to have the word "memorial" put into the Title. I do not suppose that the principle enshrined in the Bill will ever now be in danger—I certainly hope not. But I am sure that if the National Land Fund had been more closely associated in the public mind with a memorial, it would have been more difficult to reduce it in the middle 'fifties.
The original intention to set up a land fund as a means of preserving, as a war memorial, land and buildings for public enjoyment, and doing so without incurring public expenditure with each acquisition, was frustrated. But that intention has now at long last been realised. The importance of this fund is that it can be used when it is most needed. It is a genuine reserve, as the Minister has said. It can carry forward its unspent balance, if it has one, from one year to the next. This fund is therefore given a basic independence and thus, at last, we have the makings of a sensible system for the public rescue of heritage property.
I say "the makings of a sensible system", because of course this fund, while it is the prerequisite of a comprehensive system, does not form such a system by itself. It will be at the heart of it, however, and the trustees will have a central and catalytic job to do. They will be the agency which brings together those who must part with heritage assets, and those who are to take charge of such assets on the public behalf. I believe that they can, and should, have more than merely a supporting role to play. With the scope that this Bill gives them, with their authority and their funds—small though they may be at present—with their contact with Ministers and Government departments, as well as the knowledge which they will develop of the amenity societies and their work and all those interested in the heritage, the trustees of the fund will be much better placed than anybody else to lead the whole movement to preserve, in these fast-changing times, the physical aspect of our past for the enjoyment of the present and the future.
Of course, they will work closely with those such as the National Trusts for England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

43
on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, whose role it is to hold and to look after land, buildings, pictures and the rest; and into this category of people with whom they will work, fall also museums and galleries, local authorities and, indeed, private owners of historic houses, ably represented as they are by the Historic Houses Association. That is how I envisage the role of the trustees developing and I congratulate the Government on having made it possible.
Yet, my Lords, I am not quite clear about the extent to which the Government see it in this way, for they have not given the trustees the freedom which they deserve and which they must have if they are to be fully effective. According to Clause 4(3) of the Bill, the trustees have to ask Ministers whether they may make an acquisition themselves—although, of course, they may make grants without permission—and they have to ask them for how long they may retain it. Clause 5 imposes similar restrictions. Why? It is because, we shall be told, it is not their role to hold property. We understand that very well and it is clear enough in the Bill. But why tie them so tightly, I wonder, in the matter of tactics? Negotiations in these matters are often delicate. On occasion, time is needed, and on other occasions a decision is needed very quickly. Why not leave timing and tactics to the trustees? Why not tell them that they may acquire property, but may not hold it for more than perhaps a year? They are to be men of quality. Would it not be better to give them maximum flexibility and then review their performance in the round year by year and let Parliament call them to account?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was good enough to refer in another place to the growth of the National Trust and he foretold a similar growth for the Heritage Fund. He forecast that in the future the branches of the National Heritage Fund would spread ever more widely over the heritage, protecting it from the economic storms and changes that make it so especially vulnerable. He recalled the even more modest beginnings of the National Trust which, he said, has now become one of our great national institutions, known throughout the world for its skill and sagacity. If the National Trust deserves this tribute, and I think
44
that it does, I am convinced that it could never have grown to deserve it without the flexibility that comes with independence. The two are inseparable, and when the Bill comes to be examined in detail I beg that that shall be your Lordships' guiding principle.
May I make a few short points about the Bill. There is one feature of special concern to the National Trust which I must mention. In Section 3, the Trustees are given power to assist eligible recipients to "acquire, maintain and preserve". Nowhere is it explicitly stated that they may endow. It has been said in another place that "maintain and preserve" covers endowments; but why, I wonder, has the word "endow" not been used? After all, maintenance and preservation might be effected by annual deficit payments. The Government have used these in the past to finance certain properties taken on by the National Trust by agreement with the Government, and we are extremely grateful. But the fact is that the National Trust has found that it cannot maintain its own standards of preservation, its own priorities, under a system of annual deficit grants, and I have to say that we do not wish to take on any more houses on that basis. If we are to be the agents chosen to manage a property acquired by the State, that property will have to be financed by endowment; and since, when we take on a property, we undertake to maintain it in perpetuity we have to build into the endowment required a figure reflecting some part of our fears about inflation. Having done so, we then take all the risks. This is the only basis on which the National Trust can satisfactorily operate. I am disturbed that the word "endow" does not appear in the Bill because, whatever assurances may have been given, or may yet be given in Committee, a court of law will look at the wording of the Bill and not at assurances.
Another point I hope we shall look at carefully is the requirement, to be put upon trustees in Section 3, to have regard to the desirability to secure public access. If that means simply that they must consider whether it is desirable or not, well and good. But the important thing to remember is that public access and public benefit are not always the same thing. Let me give your Lordships an example which might commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge,

45
who is President of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and with whom I had the pleasure of visiting the Society the other day. The example is this: you must prevent public access to places where rare birds nest if you want the public benefit of seeing them fly.
I hope we shall also consider the possibility of allowing the trustees to assist the purchase of rights of way and other easements without necessarily having to purchase the land. In managing property for the public good, such acquisitions, when you cannot get hold of the land, are sometimes crucial to good management. I could give examples, but I shall not weary your Lordships with them, where they have been very important to the National Trust. An example is the power to purchase shooting rights and extinguish them. I hope your Lordships will not think that I am hostile to sportsmen. Very much the reverse is the case. However, it can be important to be able to get hold of shooting rights and extinguish them if one wants to manage a particular piece of ground for the benefit of the maximum number of people.
Another matter which is of great importance to the Trust and which has been mentioned already is the recognition in the Bill that objects taken into national ownership can be left in their historic setting. This is a great step forward and I welcome it with great enthusiasm.
There is one omission in the Bill which saddens me, and I would hope that it might be remedied. I am sad that the National Art-Collections Fund—I am a member of its executive so I must declare an interest—is not among those eligible to receive works of art from the Heritage Fund trustees. It would be particularly appropriate if it were, I think, since its expertise in deciding where works of art shall finally be lodged is unsurpassed. Certainly if the trustees of the Heritage Fund are not to hold property themselves without ministerial sanction, it might be convenient for them to be able to hand over such property, when in the form of works of art, to the National Art-Collections Fund.
As I have said, the Heritage Fund will be at the centre of the system for conserving our heritage, but it is only one element of the system; and, speaking for one minute
46
about small houses and their contents—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon—no system can preserve small houses which does not make full use of the private owner. If private owners are willing to share their possessions with the public, in the sense of showing them over their houses, they must be given real encouragement. One member of the Select Committee whose report gave rise to this Bill originally, argued constantly that private owners were unnecessary, that they were privileged, that their privilege should not be supported and that private ownership was not the sine qua non of preservation; the State could do it all. I can only say that the National Trust certainly could not do it all without changing its character completely and becoming a vast and impersonal bureaucracy. The State could not even try. It would have to impose such a bureaucracy at vast expense to do the job.
The only way to preserve these houses for public enjoyment is to help owners to do it themselves on terms that ensure access. Help is already forthcoming but it is not yet fully effective, and one prerequisite of further advance is an improvement in the maintenance fund arrangements. I know that this is not a matter for today, but I hope that it will be borne in mind. If the Government will recognise that fiscal changes are still needed here, then we really shall have a credible system for ensuring that our heritage survives in the form which gives people most pleasure. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill and I do not want my enthusiasm for it to seem qualified because I have drawn attention to what I see as its imperfections.
The National Trust owns a seventeenth-century church at Staunton Harold, once a family home of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The church was built during the Commonwealth, at a stormy time in our history, and its founder, Sir Richard Shirley, is commemorated by an inscription there which reads:
"When all things sacred were throughout ye nation Either Demollisht or profaned, Sir Richard Shirley Barronet founded this Church, whose singular praise it is to have done ye best things in ye worst times And hoped them in the most callimitous".
For bringing forward this Bill in these times, which are pretty "callimitous", we are entitled to feel that we are hoping

47
"ye best things in ye most callimitous times", and the Government are likewise deserving, my Lords, of singular praise.
4.39 p.m.
Lady SALTOUN: My Lords, it is with great humility that I crave the indulgence of the House in making my maiden speech here. I will try to be as brief as possible but before I start to say what I intend to say I should like to congratulate my sister in distress, the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, on her most delightful speech. I agreed with every word she said and I hope in the future frequently to hear her speak again.
First, I should like to congratulate the Government on producing a Bill which is long overdue if any of Britain's historic heritage of old buildings and their contents are to survive or remain in this country for very much longer. Secondly, I must declare a personal interest in this matter as the owner of a small, but partly very ancient castle of considerable historical and architectural interest, particularly to the immediate locality, where old buildings are few and far between. I believe, although I may be wrong, that it is the oldest building in Aberdeenshire still inhabited by the descendants of the original builder. Also it has something else which may be unique: portraits of every Chief of the Frasers in unbroken succession from 1570 down to my father. For reasons with which I will not bore your Lordships it is not at present open to the public.
The setting up of a National Heritage Fund is a great step forward and Clause 3(1)(a) encourages me to make a plea to the Government to make a slice of that cake available to the many owners of similar buildings all over Britain which are open to the public but which, for various reasons, cannot attract a large enough number of visitors to do anything like cover their most basic maintenance costs. The owners of many comparatively large houses are also in difficulties, although theirs are less acute.
Scotland has very few "Great Houses" as understood by that term in England. Indeed I believe there are only six which are treated under Case I for admission charges by the Inland Revenue. Until the late 18th or early 19th centuries
48
Scotland was a very poor country indeed as compared with England and until the late 18th century very few lairds, even great landowners, could afford to build on anything like the scale of their English counterparts. Consequently the national heritage of Scotland, particularly in the north and north-east, consists mainly of small and awkward castles and houses, often of great historical or local interest, often in fairly remote situations or even very remote ones such as Kisimul on a rocky island in Castlebay, Barra, which was remote enough to be the stronghold of pirates called McNeil, and also a few larger houses of great attraction but too remotely situated to attract a sufficient number of visitors to make any realistic contribution to the basic cost of upkeep. Apart from their remote situation, many are too physically awkward to be open except by appointment to small parties and are fully occupied by the families who own them. They do not have separate wings where the family can have private quarters and state rooms which can be open every day to large numbers of visitors, even if the numbers of visitors existed. Nevertheless they are of great interest to local people, to historians, archeologists, students and above all to tourists in the season, especially in bad weather, of which we frequently have a good deal, even in the summer!
The cost of their upkeep is, however, enormous. Often the buildings are very high. Slaters are almost impossible to get and are not keen on working on high roofs. Who can blame them? So one owner I know has to hire a large mobile crane every time slates need replacing. Incidentally this particular house is open from March until October, a longer season than most, and its owner does all in his power to attract the maximum number of visitors. But his roof maintenance costs are huge, as are those of many others. Painting, too, is difficult as men do not like working off very long ladders. The same applies to cleaning of rones and downpipes. Other repairs are also very costly, especially if done in such a way as not to spoil the original fabric of the building. Heating, a minimum of which is necessary in our climate to prevent deterioration of both building and contents, costs a fortune. Insurance is exorbitant, as are security, rates, road maintenance and the wages of such minimal staff as are necessary

49
to conduct visitors round, clean and maintain the surroundings in such condition as not to repel visitors but, if possible, attract them. Because of this, many houses are not being properly maintained even now and are in process of decay.
Yet these small, poky and, by English standards, poor slums are our historic heritage. With, or even without, continuing inflation many owners are faced with giving up in the very near future. One owner of an exceptionally fine house told me last week that he will have to move out within the next year unless some really helpful legislation is forthcoming very soon indeed. The house will be abandoned and the contents, some of great local interest and, in this case, considerable beauty, will be dispersed.
Without wishing to be in any way derogatory about the wonderful work done by the National Trust, the Royal Commissions for Ancient and Historic Monuments and the Historic Buildings Councils, et cetera, it is a fact that many of the public prefer to see round inhabited houses and the rooms used by the family. When I do show visitors round my house, which I quite often do, they almost always say how much they have enjoyed it because it has the lived-in feeling and atmosphere of a family home. And I do not think it is only because I have not asked them to pay!
My Lords, I implore the Government to extend, if it does not already do so Clause 3(7)(c) to include private owners of such amenities described therein and to include the private owner in the category described as a "body"—which as many of your Lordships well know, is Scots for a person!—or else, by some other means, such as enabling a proportion of maintenance costs to be set off against tax, give some considerable assistance to the struggling owners of these properties. If they are to survive, there is no time to be lost. Indeed, it is already almost too late.
4.47 p.m.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I am very fortunate that it falls to me to be the first to congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on a notable maiden Speech. It would perhaps not be accurate to describe her as a maiden Lady! She has made a valuable and constructive
50
contribution to our debate. With many of your Lordships I well remember the affection in which the House held her father, who was a familiar figure on the Cross-Benches for many years and we must all be glad that the noble Lady is following in his footsteps. We shall hope very often to hear her in the future.
Like other noble Lords and indeed many others who are interested in our national heritage I should like to welcome most warmly this Bill, which embodies most of the unanimous recommendations of the all-party Select Committee which considered these matters last year in another place. To the members of that Committee and especially to their chairman, Mr. Arthur Jones, we owe a great debt of gratitude, and no less to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right honourable Norman St. John Stevas, who is the minister now responsible for the Arts.
I will not go over once again the lamentable history of the National Land Fund, set up by Mr. Hugh Dalton in 1946, nor the way in which his inspired vision of a memorial to those who gave their lives in the last World War has been, for more than 30 years, frustrated by the Treasury. This Bill will do something to set matters to rights. It may indeed be said that it is "too little and too late". All the same, late is better than never, and as for "too little", well, if Hugh Dalton's intentions had been fully realised great sums might in these last decades have been applied to preserving our national heritage of unspoiled coast and countryside, of our historic houses and their contents. Still, we are fortunate that even now there is so very much for future generations to enjoy. If the sums now available for the purpose under this Bill are by the standard of the inflated values of today small and inadequate, it would be churlish in the present economic climate to look a gift horse in the mouth. So I welcome this Bill warmly and unreservedly.
The Bill was very fully considered in another place and a number of amendments made which improve it. But there is one specific matter that still needs the Government's consideration and to which I should perhaps draw your Lordships' attention, for it has, I think by inadvertence, been misunderstood, and if the Bill is to be fully effective it should

51
be put right. In the provisions for acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax it is set out—I refer to Clause 9—that property so accepted shall be transferred to an appropriate institution or body on such conditions as the Minister may direct.
This is clearly right and proper in respect of buildings and land transferred to what I might call amenity bodies, the National Trust and so on, when receiving land or houses, et cetera, transferred to them by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Indeed this requirement, as set out in this Bill, follows the Finance Act 1946, which set up the National Land Fund in the first instance, and is now, in this Bill, to be repealed. But since that time the National Land Fund has been expanded to embrace property of other kinds, not only land and houses but their contents, pictures, furniture, libraries and so on, works of art that fall under the aegis of the Minister responsible for the arts and libraries, that will, if they are accepted in satisfaction of tax, naturally be transferred to museums or galleries or public libraries, or directed—as they may be under this Bill, and one hopes often will be—to be retained in their context as a part of the contents of a historic house, or whatever may be most suitable.
It would be quite inappropriate, as I think your Lordships would agree, that objects directed by the Minister for the Arts to museums and galleries, or to public libraries, should be held by them subject to conditions set and controlled by the Minister. Museums and galleries should clearly not be subject to any such direction in detail. Certainly the museums themselves, and also I believe the Standing Commission, feel very strongly on this matter.
This blemish in the Bill could be resolved very simply by the Government introducing an amendment in due course to divide subsection (2) of Clause 9 into two separate subsections, one under which the Minister concerned will lay down conditions in respect of property transferred to amenity or nature conservation bodies, the other without any reference to conditions where property is transferred to museums and public libraries. I hope that my noble friend will give careful
52
consideration to this matter and that the Government will bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage.
If this is done, I would also express the hope that the amendment will, in covering disposals to museums and libraries of objects accepted in satisfaction of tax, take the opportunity of adding explicitly in the new subsection two bodies that have since 1973 been eligible to receive accepted objects, the National Art Collections Fund and the Friends of the National Libraries. These two bodies, set down in the Treasury Guidelines of 1973, as reprinted in the report of the Select Committee on the Land Fund, were by some oversight omitted from the Treasury Guidelines of 1977 entitled, Capital Taxation and the National Heritage. I need not, I think, enlarge to your Lordships on the outstanding services of the National Art Collections Fund to our museums and galleries over more than half a century, and I am sure that your Lordships would agree that a specific reference to the National Art Collections Fund in this legislation would not only be a grateful acknowledgment of those outstanding services but would be a great encouragement and a very real help to those concerned in the valuable work done by that fund. I hope my noble friend may be able to assure us that this will be done. My Lords, with those comments and suggestions, I welcome the Bill most warmly and gratefully.
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WORCESTER: My Lords, to enjoy two maiden speeches in one afternoon on a similar subject is a privilege that we do not often have in this House. It is a particular pleasure, is it not, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, on her speech. Over the years, many of us have appreciated herself, her revered husband and her family for the manner in which they have exercised care and understanding not only for our heritage but for a great deal else. We hope to hear more from her. Also, indeed, I am sure we should express our appreciation to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Clearly, both from her interesting account and indeed from her experience, your Lordships' House will benefit, I hope, in future a great deal from her comments.

53
I would speak for a moment as representing the Episcopal Benches in your Lordships' House, first in welcoming the Bill. This is undoubtedly a very important Bill, as it is likely to become an omnibus Act covering a great many spheres. The intent of it is important for us all, and the decision that the working of the Bill shall be under one department augurs well for better understanding of Government aid in these various spheres. I should like to speak nevertheless for a moment on the National Heritage Bill as it affects the Church. Your Lordships will understand that a substantial proportion, in fact a huge element of our heritage, to put it casually, is in the hands of the C of E; to put it more seriously, is a matter of great concern to the Church. Parishes as well as cathedrals have over the years accepted responsibility, and at present accept responsibility, with some apprehension, for their buildings, for their treasures, for marvellous works of art, particularly in the field of sculpture, for priceless libraries and indeed for pockets of land of amenity value. I speak here as one of the governors of the Church Commissioners with special responsibility for redundant churches, but as I look wider our hope is for an increased partnership with the State in the conservation of our heritage, an increased partnership, not a sole responsibility. I would also hope for an increased co-operation between statutory services, of which we look like having several, and the voluntary bodies that are concerned with the same matter. The co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary in this whole field of our heritage is of enormous importance.
Surely it has been the particular genius of our country in these spheres not to have one or the other, not statutory or voluntary care but both. So I would hope that with the establishment of such a fund there would also be a readiness on behalf of the trustees to engage and develop local initiative, local care and local pride in the places and items of heritage; and a readiness to have such local initiative, care and pride matched, with the National Heritage Fund to sustain such movements and, If necessary, to prime the pump and monitor local voluntary initiative in these matters.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the progress of the partnership of
54
Church and State. In 1968 the Redundant Churches Fund was established by agreement of Parliament with a half-and-half responsibility. At present, we are in the second five-year period and the budget is in the realm of £2,900,000 which is to be divided half-and-half between the Church and the State. That system is working well. In 1977 the terms of the Historic Buildings Trust were widened to include churches in use. Already £2 million has been received from the Government for the conservation of this enormously important heritage. However, the £2 million that has been received, has been matched by a much larger sum given by local communities and local churches. That, of course, is of tremendous importance.
I should like to mention that under Article 8 of the agreement we in the churches realise the whole problem of the maintenance of some of the listed churches which might otherwise call for demolition. Under our new agreement we, in the Church Commission, will not go forward with any such demolition without reference to the Department of Environment. That is another instance of partnership and the type of partnership that we hope will be enlarged in the terms of the proposed fund.
Nevertheless, it could be asked: What will be the policy of this fund—which does not appear plain from the words of the Bill—as regards cathedrals? I shall not open the major question of State aid for cathedrals. That has been very carefully looked into by a working party during the last year or two. The cathedrals still have their own capacity for fund raising, but it is to be hoped that the management of the proposed fund will be encouraged to assist and to enter into partnership with those bodies, especially cathedrals, which are beginning to run their own museums. I am thinking of those cathedrals that now have their priceless treasuries open to the public and those cathedrals that have libraries.
I hesitate to put the following example forward, but this afternoon we have been allowed to mention our own domestic situations. Within the house in which I am invited to live there is a library beyond valuation. It was put together in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is open to the

55
public on carefully arranged days and once again I pay tribute to my wife, who entirely manages the opening of the Hurd Library to the public in that part of Worcestershire and much else of the state rooms of Hartlebury Castle. I hope that the trustees will recognise that there are these pockets of amenity and heritage which are in very grave danger of deteriorating and being lost to the pleasure of the public.
Paragraph 3(7)(a) makes no mention of such possible provision, but I understand that in another place the matter has also been raised and that an encouraging response was received. It is surely increasingly difficult to meet the costs of this particular type of small heritage, but it can be done in partnership with voluntary work.
In conclusion I should like to point out that the Bill speaks of amenities. Is it not to be hoped that amenities in the heavily populated areas will not be overlooked or regarded as sub-standard? Although I would urge the inclusion of cathedral treasuries, cathedral libraries and museums such as the ones I have mentioned, I would also ask for the inclusion of churches and chapels and even rectories, which are often listed buildings, buried in heavily populated areas such as I have within the Black Country. I ask that such amenities which are used by the local populations and loved by the local populations should receive the attention of this fund. When they are buried in urban areas they are in grave danger of being lost altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned the importance of context—of the setting of the amenity. I do not think that that can be overestimated. As regards all these matters we on the episcopal Benches are grateful for the many blessings that look like being forthcoming in this otherwise rather bleak season. We would give all the support to the Bill that we can. I hesitate to join in an otherwise mere chorus in begging leave of this House to be gone before the end of this debate, but, the General Synod is sitting and other ecclesiastical duties call. It may be that, with regret, I shall not be able to be present to hear the reply.
5.7 p.m.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the two noble Baronesses on their maiden speeches. I knew the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, quite well at Oxford. How pleased and how proud he would be with the way that she made her maiden speech. I hope that Lady Saltoun will find cause to desert the tribal fastnesses in which she lives and come South and continue to give us some of the benefit of her wisdom and wit.
There is a long list of speakers and I wish to make only three points that will try to develop themes which I see in the Bill, which I think want emphasising and which in particular need to be put into the Budget or the Finance Bill, which we all know is compiled in the other place. However, before I do anything I must declare an interest. I have a family home in Yorkshire. I am chairman of Arundel Castle Trustees which is a charitable trust set up to run Arundel which my cousin left to the nation with the consent of his wife, my father and so on.
We all know that the cheapest way of running private houses is for the owners who live in them to be put in charge. We all know that that means that there is another side to the penny—those houses must be open to the public and the public must benefit from them. There is no question of any owner being subsidised for a private domestic life. The owner agrees before this takes place to have the house open—I think it is for a minimum of 50 days—and then all these matters follow.
I see in the Bill provisions about surrending some of the chattels in lieu of capital transfer tax. In my experience, when I surrendered five pictures at Arundel with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to pay death duties—capital transfer tax now—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and I had a great problem in overcoming the fact that it was not possible, without special regulations, for those pictures to be surrendered to a body, the National Portrait Gallery, and then left in a house that was not of the National Trust type. The noble Lord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had to make special arrangements in order that they could be left at Arundel—where they

57
are now—but still belong to the National Portrait Gallery. In a sense, Arundel is a guinea pig. Leeds Castle was the first such charitable trust and Arundel is the second. I understand that there are many more in the pipeline.
However, the point I want to develop further is that an owner should be able to surrender, in payment of capital transfer tax, a picture, a chattel or something else, and that that object can be left in the owner's house even though the owner had not made that house into a charitable trust. Surely that is the intention which we should all seek. I do not want it to be the case that every time a chattel is used in satisfaction of capital transfer tax, it must go either to a national museum or to a local museum; I hope that it will stay in the house where it belongs.
The other effect of leaving works of art in houses in which they belong is that it curbs the terrible tendency for such works to be centralised in London and Edinburgh. We all know the extent to which our great museums and libraries in London and Edinburgh are full of treasures, and down in the basements more treasures are stacked up. It would be nonsensical for further works of art to be added to them. I appreciate that sometimes works of art must be so transferred, but I hope that they can be left in the houses where they are at present.
I should like to develop this point further. If possible, I should like Ministers to agree to an item being surrendered and to its being transferred, nominally, to the local museum. I give the example of Arundel, which is in our minds. Such an item could be transferred to Chichester Museum but left at Arundel, or, to take another part of the country, it could be transferred to Norwich Museum but left in a house in that area. I do not see why we have to burden the administration at this point by going to the big national museums and libraries.
The outcome—and it is a hidden point—is that the locality would still believe that the chattels belonging to it are present. On that, wonderful things build. Arundel has now been a charitable trust for five years. We hold a Shakespearean play at Arundel; when we are trying to get grants from the Arts Council we have what is
58
called an Arundel Festival. It is not quite that; but when we are trying to obtain grants that is what we call it. It adds a wonderful atmosphere to the locality and people begin to be proud of their surroundings.
It is remarkable that all the people who go round these country houses—I touch wood, so to speak metaphorically—do not want to damage anything or steal anything; they respect the works of art in a most remarkable way. I have been round many country houses, like those of your Lordships; I see school children and tourists, and I ask myself how people can behave as they do when they go to a football match. They are the same people, but under these civilising influences they seem totally different. I must mention, quietly, that some visitors who come from across the water are not always quite so respectful as we should like them to be. Perhaps that is something to do with their education, and a good mark for the way in which we educate our people.
My second point is as to how we decide what can be designated as worthy of being used in satisfaction for payment of capital transfer tax. The old word used to be "pre-eminent"; now the word "outstanding" is used. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said in his opening speech that he did not think this would be changed. I understand that it is the Ministers who will decide what is pre-eminent. Of course, the nation cannot accept very ordinary works of art. However, as was said in another place, something that is pre-eminent in London is obviously pre-eminent everywhere—presumably even in Edinburgh; but something might well be very pre-eminent in a locality but not be pre-eminent in London. I should like that word to be defined much more broadly than it is at present.
If I could give a clue, I think that anything that has been exempted as being of national importance and, therefore, which has not incurred death duties, unless sold, ought to be worthy of being declared pre-eminent. Of the five pictures that were transferred, one was not going to be considered pre-eminent at all by Messrs. Christie, Manson and Woods, who were to draw up the list of suggested pre-eminent items. John Hayes, the director of the National Portrait Gallery,

59
wanted a picture of Cardinal Newman. The picture in question was a Millet and a very good one. My cousin's father, the Duke Henry, was a great friend of Newman and had him made into a cardinal, and so on. It is a particularly fine picture and is very rightly staying at Arundel. However, but only after a great deal of persuasion was it put into that category. I should like to see the definition made very much broader, particularly when an item in a manor house or a Scottish castle in the tribal areas is involved. I should like it to be defined by the local museum, but it must, of course, be something of importance.
Finally, this Bill is all part and parcel of a great move forward. I think that everyone in the House agrees that this is not a party matter; in fact, everyone is attentive to it and happy that such good groundwork was carried out in the other place. At present to designate Arundel Park as "heritage land", there must be a death or a transfer of ownership (such as a death), or it must be bought by someone. I do not think that that is right. It should be possible for any owner or body to have something designated "heritage land" without any transfer in ownership at all. We have had to go through a subterfuge here of forming a maintenance fund to keep the heritage land going, and that compels the Treasury to see whether it is worthy of being heritage land. I hope that that can be made simpler; perhaps it can be covered in the Budget. I hope that anything that is worthy of being heritage land can be so described without there being any transfer in ownership.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, perhaps I can clear my mind by asking the noble Duke whether it is his idea that this should be in lieu, without a debt for it to be in lieu of? That is the problem, is it not?
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, I well understand the question. In this particular case, it is simply the intention that this land should be designated "heritage land", which means that it can be handed on from one generation of families to the next without its being subject to capital transfer tax. The other use referred to is, that if it was given in lieu
60
then it would become, so to speak, national land. I am not wanting that to be the sense of it. Have I made my point clear?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: Yes. I thank the noble Duke very much.
The Duke of NORFOLK: I hope it is clear to the rest of your Lordships.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: It is not for me to answer, anyway.
The Duke of NORFOLK: My Lords, having made those three points I really do not wish to speak for much longer to your Lordships, except to say that we are unique in our country. We have not been invaded since 1066. We have not had the ravages of wars such as they have had on the continent. We have not had those awful revolutions they have had. What we have is absolutely unique. I return to the point I made before: if it can be preserved, it has a great effect on the youth of our nation and on the way people respect things, their home life, and all their history. I commend this Bill as being a great move forward.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate. I was particularly interested in what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said about the problems and experiences that he has had in connection with his wonderful property. I hope that the Government will feel that what the noble Duke has just said is something that can be incorporated in the Bill, because he has had the experience and difficulties which this Bill is designed to try to prevent. This is a wonderful occasion when we, in this House, have no one dissenting from the object of the Bill. It is something we all want.
As I was listening to the speeches, I thought what a pity it was that this Bill had not been brought in 100 or perhaps 50 years ago. I remember at an exhibition—at the National Trust, or it may have been the National Art Collections Fund—seeing a book containing photographs of all the houses and properties that had been lost and destroyed because it was impossible

61
for the owners to maintain them. There was no fund to prevent them from being lost to the nation. I am sure that all of us today hope that this is going to be one of the ways in which the heritage we now have can be preserved. I agree with the noble Duke that our heritage is fantastic, since we have never had a war and enemies on our soil. The worst we have had was the bombing in the last war which, alas!, destroyed a number of lovely things, but much of it has been restored. We have this heritage which other nations would long to have, and would do all they could to preserve.
I should like to add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers. We had the most delightful speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, and from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, from the tribal regions to which I belong, so I appreciate very much what she said about Aberdeenshire. I could give examples from the Borders where the importance of preserving great houses is equally acknowledged.
I hope that this trust works closely with a number of other trusts, many of which have been mentioned today. We know the great National Trust—the noble Lord Lord Gibson, has been chairman of one—and the National Trust of Scotland. They have done and are doing marvellous work, but there are other trusts possibly not so well known in this sphere which also work on the heritage. There is the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust; the Pilgrim Trust, the Nuffield Foundation; the Rowntree Trust, and many more. They are doing work which could co-operate very well with the National Trust we are discussing today. They have given grants over many years to preserve our heritage.
I have been for 40 years a member of the Carnegie Trust. While the heritage is only one side of our work, we have still managed in the course of a number of years to have a policy which has helped museums and the countryside in many different ways, and which is now called the Heritage Policy. It includes giving money to local preservaton societies, and in every way trying to help to develop the countryside so that people living there and coming into the area can explore, understand, and get to know the beautiful areas of England, Wales and Scotland.
The trustees are particularly interested in this. We try to work as closely as
62
possible with the localities. We have established meeting places where you can learn about the countryside, where there are photographs, illustrations, descriptions of the flowers, the trees, the buildings and so on in the rural environment which is part of the countryside. What has been done in that way has, I know, interested people greatly in preserving the beauty of the countryside, teaching them how to understand and appreciate the beauty. As someone said, it is not only great buildings that we want to preserve, it is also the beauty of the hills, sea coasts, and all the other lovely things.
In the last five years our trust has distributed more than £472,000. It does not sound a great deal when you think in terms of millions, but it means that we have been able to work closely with other trusts—particularly the Pilgrim Trust—in helping to preserve these important parts of our heritage. I should like to stress the great importance—which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned—of allowing these trustees, who I am sure will be great experts in a wide field of the heritage, to be as independent as possible.
There is a bit of the Bill that I do not like very much, and that is the reference all the time to a Minister; whether it is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister for the Environment. By all means let those departments be closely associated, but if you are to get first-class people and have an excellent policy and do it in the right way, you have to let these people have their independence and allow them to take decisions. That is very important. Many of the great pictures, objets d'art or manuscripts which come up for sale perhaps come up without the department's knowing. It may be too late to consult someone as to whether or not a certain picture, or manuscript, should be bought by this fund, or this fund with the help of some of the other trusts. It may have gone before you find out that it is for sale. Therefore, it is important that the trustees should have the opportunity of acting swiftly and acting, as I am sure they will, with knowledge and appreciation.
I hope when we come to discuss this Bill in detail that matters of that kind can be stressed, and small amendments

63
made which will not in a sense alter the Bill at all but simply mean that you have more trust and give people more responsibility, and if possible not to have to refer everything, or certain things, to the departments and Ministers concerned. Knowing of the business in ministerial departments, I cannot help thinking that they would be only too delighted not to have the responsibility for approving every important decision made by the trustees. I am sure that the Ministers concerned would feel only too happy that they could trust these people to act on their own. I also think that working independently they may, in the case of buying things, get them more cheaply or obtain better value for money than after the long period of discussion and consultation which might have to go on with Government departments, so I hope we will allow the new trust to have as much independence as possible.
I hope too that the fund will be able to deal with what many noble Lords have spoken about today, namely the smaller houses, smaller castles and smaller areas. I appreciate that the idea of the Bill was sparked off by the sale of Mentmore, but we do not want it to concentrate just on very large properties, important though they are—and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, gave an excellent illustration of how the Arundel Trust is run—because we want it to be interested in the small things and little places and, as the right reverend Prelate said, in the churches. I hope therefore the trust will cover help to a very wide range of organisations and people. Of course it will not have enough money; that is obvious. Nevertheless, we are starting it off at a very difficult moment in the economy of the country and we all want it to succeed. I feel sure it will gather momentum as it goes along and that the alterations in taxation which are being offered to people will be a tremendous advantage to the fund, and that will be of great importance.
The general principles of the measure are excellent and we can all support them. I would again stress the need for consultation with other trusts in some of these fields, because co-operation would be advantageous to all concerned and add to the amount of money which the new trust will have. While I do not think we
64
will want to make any big alterations to the Bill, there may, as a result of listening to this debate and studying the measure, be small amendments which we will wish to consider in Committee. Meantime, I wish to say with what pleasure and enthusiasm I support the trust and I hope it will live up to all the expectations we have of it. Anything any of us can do to help I am sure your Lordships will be only too willing to do.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on the two points she made: first, that the trustees of the fund which is being set up should, as it were, act as a catalyst and collaborate with many other trusts covering the whole field, and I have no doubt that point will be well in their minds when they commence functioning. Secondly, on the importance of their independence and right to do the things they want, I think the Bill provides for that in most cases, but clearly if it did not that would need to be looked at very carefully.
Apart from the speech of the noble Baroness, we have heard very remarkable maiden speeches from two other noble Ladies, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, which was most moving and memorable, and that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, a speech of which I know her father, who, as noble Lords will remember, used to sit on these Benches and was one of the great guardians of procedure in the House, would have been proud. I hope we shall hear them both often in the future.
I too am in many ways glad about what is being done in this Bill, but there is one feature of it which I confess makes me sad. What I have in mind is the amount of money we shall find in the trust from the start: it is less by some £3 million than what is in the National Land Fund at the present time, and even what is to be there—namely, £15½ million—has had £3½ million of it earmarked for purposes, very right in themselves, outwith the control of the trustees of the fund. So we start with a fund for the trustees of only £12 million, and I wonder if it can do one fraction of all the hopes that are being built on it.

65
From what Ministers have said in another place, and indeed from what the Bill itself says, I know that it is expected there will be an annual further grant of £5½ million. We also know that in cases of emergency, Parliament is in a position to do more. All the same, it is not a very great amount of money for all that it is setting out to do. I do not want to appear carping and ungrateful in saying that, because I recognise the great difficulty the Government face today owing to the crisis in our economy. When I look around and see the way people live, it is perhaps sometimes hard to believe this, but I have no doubt, and your Lordships will know it is a fact, that there is no money easily to give for whatever purpose.
My welcome for the Bill is for one reason above all and I believe it is by far the most important point to come out of the measure. It is the fact that the Treasury will no longer hold the heritage purse-strings; spending from the fund will be totally outside its control and that really is a great advance. By the very nature of things, when times have been hard, the call to preserve our heritage has been the greatest—because people have been in difficulties and having to sell or otherwise dispose of their goods—and in the past it has been at that very time that the Government have not been able to come to the help of whoever may have made the call.
Often today mention has been made of Mentmore, and noble Lords will remember how Mentmore, which might have been obtained for public enjoyment without any cost to the Government for 50 years, was lost for a niggardly £1 million or so. However, it roused public opinion and led to that excellent all-party report in the other place chaired by Mr. Arthur Jones, and in its turn that has given birth to this Bill. All who laboured to produce this end deserve our thanks, be they inside or outside Parliament. I hope—I am sure this is the hope of all noble Lords—that in the future the mouse which has been produced will, as in the Aesop fable, prove stronger than the lion.
Importantly, the Bill provides that the Minister for the Arts and the Secretary of State for the Environment shall in future have the main responsibility for safeguarding our heritage, and I am sure
66
that is right. As I fear I shall be away when the Bill is in Committee, I wish briefly to make two points in regard to the "in lieu" procedure. First, up until now, the in lieu procedure has always been conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy. None of us knows what is going on until very often it is too late. I understand some of the reasons for this; namely, the confidentiality of tax matters and so on. But I very much wonder whether many owners would not welcome others than the Treasury, or whoever is negotiating, being told early of what is proposed, so that, for example, the trustees of a fund could be alerted and thus make preparations.
Again, one thinks of Mentmore. For several years negotiations went on, and finally the owner lost patience—I am not sure that I altogether blame him—and we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, of how at Baddesley the negotiations, which may now be completed, have dragged on for year after year. If we could know about things sooner, it might accelerate the situation and might also make it easier.
Recently there was the example of The Grange. The Department of the Environment asked the opinion of the public as to what should be done with it, and three or four different alternatives were given. Whether or not the right one was chosen, I know not, but what I do know is that the procedure was much quicker than in other cases and the public was involved. I hope that as a general policy the Government—of whatever party—will try to ensure that the public know sooner rather than later.
My second point regarding the in lieu procedure is in relation to Clause 9(1), under which Ministers are to decide what should be accepted and done with objects accepted. Under present procedures Ministers consult their official adviser. He is almost always based in London. Very often there is only one adviser, who has great responsibility. I am not saying that he does not do the job well, but I am saying that those in the Provinces, in the tribal areas of Scotland, in Wales, and even perhaps in Northern Ireland, may be a little unhappy about this state of affairs and may indeed at times have a real grievance. I wonder whether it would not be better if in future Ministers

67
make use of not just one official, but rather of a well equipped and somewhat larger body to advise them in such cases. In saying that I particularly have in mind the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. In their deliberations they would seek the help of the official adviser just as today the Reviewing Committee seek the help of whoever may be concerned in their decisions. I know that the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries would be prepared to take on this task, and I hope that this suggestion will be very seriously considered.
My last point concerns VAT—which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon—and its charge on repairs to historic buildings. By their very nature these buildings have to be preserved unchanged and cannot be improved, thus perhaps avoiding VAT. It is an absurd situation that VAT is charged on repairs to historic buildings, whereas new buildings get away with a nil rating. That is a topsy-turvy kingdom, and I hope that something is done to change it.
I do not think that I have time to mention in detail my own case in this connection, but I should like to tell your Lordships very briefly—and this is an interest I must declare—that, very fortunately, I live in a group of buildings which are of great historical and architectural importance. The chapel in those buildings has an outstanding 17th century painted ceiling. Quite suddenly the whole of the roof is in danger. I shall have to do something about it as soon as the snows are finished and the weather is fair. My temptation is to go to the Historic Buildings Council and say, "May I please have a grant for at least 15 per cent. to cover the cost of the VAT on what am going to do?" Is it not absurd that out of one Government fund there should be made available to me money so that I can merely pass it on to another pocket of the Government?
I hope that a way can be found to get rid of VAT in the case of buildings which are of great historic importance. If the Historic Buildings Council was to issue a certificate saying that a building must be preserved (in the way it does in relation to buildings generally) would not that enable the Treasury to accept that in such
68
cases VAT should not be charged? I have given an example concerning a relatively small sum, but this matter is of very great importance all over the country. I hope that once again the Government will do battle with the Treasury and win on this point.
The Bill is a start. It has an excellent framework for great things in the future. I congratulate in particular the Minister for the Arts upon having fulfilled a pledge. We all know his real concern and involvement in the matter. Fifty million people visit our historic houses in a year; 25 million visit our museums and galleries. That is a fairly formidable political force, and I hope that Parliament will remember these figures when it decides what more it is to do in the way of topping up the fund. To those who care about our heritage, and in particular to those who fought so valiantly and unceasingly to safeguard it, I say, "Continue to keep up the pressure. Continue to be alert and watchful, and then this Bill, which provides so good a framework, will achieve, a generation late, the purpose—and more—for which the Dalton Fund was conceived".
5.47 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, what a delight to hear two maiden speeches in one afternoon—and both from charming ladies. The sweetness and light we have received from them extends to and pervades all the parliamentary proceedings on the Bill so far. I am glad to see that it still has support from all corners of the House. I think that that support also includes the view that has already been expressed at least twice in the debate; namely, that the best and the cheapest way of conserving and caring for the heritage is by keeping it in private hands. That is particularly true of the small houses—a point first made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman,—and it is particularly true, too, where it is important to keep the whole of an estate or a property intact with all its belongings in it. No one is better able to care for those belongings, the family heirlooms, than the family itself. It is for this reason that I particularly welcome the parts of the Bill that seem to me to make provision for this.
If it is not possible to keep the heritage in private hands in the sense of keeping

69
it in private ownership, let us at least try to keep it in private hands in the sense of it being in private management working through a charitable trust. I am pleased to see that provision for that arrangement is clearly envisaged in subsection (6) and subsection (7), paragraph (c) of Clause 3, where bodies of that kind are referred to. Of course there will be the fear, the suspicion and the criticism that private owners, left to their own devices, will be irresponsible in regard to the care of what is entrusted to them or has been handed down to them, or will be selfish in the sense of not sharing their treasures with the public as fully as they should if they have been in receipt of public funds for their care.
But, my Lords, that position can now be fully catered for under the provisions of Clause 3(5), where the scope for laying down conditions is fully set out. I should like to see these being extensively and imaginatively used. The conditions to which I refer are divided into two parts; namely, conditions as to the management of the care and conservation of a property, and conditions as to the management of what is described (I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, rather ineptly) as access. I should like to spend a minute or two elaborating on this a little, and perhaps return to it at Committee stage.
The management of the care and conservation of the heritage is a more complex subject than might appear at first sight, and one of the last things that I think I achieved before leaving the Department of the Environment and responsibility for these things was to urge that that matter should be studied and researched—and I am glad to say that it has now been done by the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies at York—so that there will be a corpus of expert knowledge on which the managers and owners of the properties effected can draw. This subject covers the range of policy—the policy of a private owner or the policy of a charitable trust—for the repair, the maintenance and the restoration of the land, of the houses and of their contents; and I would hope that use could be made of this clause to lay down conditions which are realistic to the owner, appropriate for the properties concerned and imaginative and sensitive. Hitherto, conditions of this sort have been applied in a broad brush sort of way by the Historic Buildings Council and other
70
bodies giving grants of public monies, but there is enormous scope for the approach to be considerably improved.
I should like to draw attention to one particular point; namely, to do with insurance, which is also included in this aspect and is mentioned in the Bill. This should be looked at and thought about afresh if we are to introduce indemnity. Insurance by a private insurance company—and I ought to declare an interest as a director of one—involves a survey of the property before a policy is entered into, in which such matters as burglar-proofing, rewiring of dangerous electrical circuits, protection against the possibility of fire, and so on are all considered, and conditions laid down as to what should be done by the policyholder. It is important, when bits of heritage are moving about from one situation in which they are privately insured to another situation in which they are covered by an indemnity from the Government, that there should be an evenness in the precautions taken, and this involves fairly close consultation between the Government, who are offering the indemnity, and the private insurance companies, which are covering the property on other occasions and at other times. That is a point which we can go back to at Committee stage if need be.
The other set of conditions applies to the management of access, and, up to now, this is almost the only word that is used. There are conditions of access laid down before the Historic Buildings Council, for instance, gives a grant, and these include something as basic as opening by appointment or opening for so many days in a year—a minimum of, say, 50—and leads to the kind of pattern which you see in the annual publication which lists the properties open to the public. It is important that the properties should actually be open and the public able to go in, but it is unusual to prescribe anything about the way in which guided visits should be arranged, or whether there should be any; the extent to which things should be on display or specially exhibited; and whether there should or should not be schemes of interpretation—and here I should like to pay tribute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has done, to the work of the Carnegie Trust, which has done a tremendous amount to stimulate the interpretation of the heritage to the

71
public. There is the possibility, too, of parts of the heritage being used for historical study and the environmental education of our children in the course of school visits. All that is covered by the general term "access". It is such an all-embracing subject that Lord Gibson is quite right to say that access is not a particularly appropriate or sufficiently comprehensive term.
It seems to me that a property receiving grant from the Heritage Fund needs to have policies both for the management and for the care and conservation of the property, and also a policy covering access. I would hope that private owners, or any owners and any managers of properties benefiting from this fund, will be required to initiate policies of a fairly broad and comprehensive kind covering both those fields, and to have discussed and agreed them with the trustees before the grant is settled. Going beyond that slightly, there is one final point. I hope that the trustees will carefully consider, preferably before they start to administer this fund, the example of the churches, who have now for a long time, for 20 or 30 years, had quinquennial inspections of the fabric of the church and its contents, in which an architect goes over the whole building and reports to the parochial church council as to the state of the fabric and what needs to be done to bring it into good condition and repair, and to restore it. In my view, the time is long overdue when the more important secular buildings which make up our heritage should come under a similar regime, and I should like to suggest to my noble friend that the introduction of the National Heritage Memorial Fund on 1st April of this year is no bad moment to introduce such a régime.
5.57 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I, too, should like to offer a few words of welcome to this excellent and most useful Bill. By coincidence, it comes before your Lordships' House at a time when a perfect example of something the Bill is intended to deal with is in the public eye. I refer, of course, to the future of Heveningham Hall, the old Vanneck family house in Suffolk. It used to be pronounced "Henningham" in the days when I played in the gardens there as a child. The Times described it as one of the finest
72
examples of its period in the country. One expert—namely, myself!—would go further and say that it is the finest example; but it illustrates, I think, one of the difficulties with which we are faced in this Bill, and that is the problem of trying to find some purpose for such a beautiful house. There are too many houses in this country at the moment, which will all be liable to be looked at by the terms of this Bill, for which it is going to be extremely difficult to find a useful purpose.
I was for some time chairman of a firm named Waring and Gillow, which was founded, your Lordships will be surprised to hear, a long time ago, in 1690, up in Lancaster, which is rather suitable in view of the fact that it is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is fathering this Bill. Shortly after the war we came across a large trunk full of old work-books of Edward Gillow and his successors, and they made fascinating reading. We discovered one thing among others, and that is that Sheraton was an articled apprentice in the firm, and his work was described by his pupil-master as being "Too fantastical". What struck me going through those work-books was the enormous number of houses for which Waring and Gillow had supplied furniture but of which I had never heard, which had disappeared completely—they had either fallen down or been pulled down—and whose names meant nothing to me. That fills me with considerable alarm.
We know now, of course, of the difficulties of taxation, of expense and of repairs. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pointed out in her excellent speech, the ideal, of course, is for the owner to live in the house for which the furniture was designed. Not many of us can equal the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald (I am sorry to see he has just left his place), who lives in a house, Nostell Priory, which was designed by Adam with the help of decorator Angelica Kauffmann, the furniture for which was made by Chippendale to fit the house. Not all of us can do that; that is the ideal. But if we cannot do that, then we can find a school to go into the house, or business premises or a tourist attraction; but there comes a time when there is no purpose that one can find for a house, and that is what worries me. We are going to find that there are more of those

73
than we realise. The noble Baroness, Lady Airey, in the course of her charming maiden speech referred to a little French chateau with old people sitting behind the table. France is full of such houses which are nothing more or less than mausoleums. I hope that we shall not fall into the same trap; and I hope that we shall realise that we have really undertaken more than we realise in looking after these houses for which it is going to be impossible or extremely difficult to find a suitable employment. They are too far off the beaten track, and that is why Gillows found that so many of those houses came down. I hope in saying that that I do not sound a philistine or that I should be called a philistine, I trust by saying, when we talk about pictures, that we have far too many pictures in this country and we just cannot display more than a few of them. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, talked about my native city of Norwich. He raised the problem there which I do not think he realised. When the famous collection, the Colman Collection of the Norwich school of pictures from Crown Point was given to the Norwich museum, it carried with it a proviso that the pictures were not to leave Norwich. Many collections of pictures are like that, I believe; although I have not had the chance to check that this is so; but it is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to get the pictures displayed away from their homes in the way that many noble Lords have suggested this afternoon.
I used to work for the British National Export Council. My work took me far and wide. When abroad, I always went to the embassy, the consulate-general or the consul to tip my hat to the Queen's representative. I was depressed to find out how poorly the walls were hung with pictures. I thought that the idea would have been to have, since we are talking about my native city, a fine Crome or Cotman to illustrate the British heritage and to illustrate the British way of life to the foreigner. The ambassador with whom I raised the matter had some depressing pictures of his own on the walls which I later learned were painted by his wife and he said that it was almost impossible to get the Foreign Office or the museums to produce the pictures. Occasionally, one finds things like Joshua Reynolds' portrait of Samuel
74
Johnson on the walls of the embassy in Washington or that of Byron in Athens; but usually they have been brought there by nefarious means by the ambassador whose successors are still waging battles with the Foreign Office and the galleries to get them back on the walls.
So I decided to raise the matter in your Lordships' House and to ask why permission could not be given to museums, who have stacks of pictures in their cellars, to give some of them to the embassies and even to business firms of repute in all parts of the world. The answers were interesting. The first referred to legal difficulties to which the noble Duke has referred. Some of these now have been overcome. The second reason given was that students would wish to go to see the pictures which were hanging in the cellars and should not be deprived of the privilege.
I plucked up courage to ask the curator of one of the leading London museums if students ever did look at pictures in the cellars. "Yes", he replied. "When was the last occasion?", I asked. "Four months ago", he said. So this is not, I think, a very good case and I think that the Bill will now assist in this matter and I welcome that assistance. It also gives indemnity to those pictures that occasionally get mislaid or lost. This happens. Vandalism is on the increase. We have only to look at the telephone booths in the cities and the graffiti on the walls. One evidence, so far as I can see, of the raising of the school-leaving age is that the rude words are now written higher up on the walls than in days gone by. Therefore, there is the risk; but it is not always that a Goya is stolen or a knife put into a Rokeby Venus. This is a risk that has to be run and I am glad that the Bill tries to make amends for what has happened in the past.
One reason was given which intrigued me as to why pictures should not be loaned to embassies abroad. I am not making this up; it is in Hansard. We were told that there was a risk that when pictures went into hot climates they might be eaten by termites. I got hold of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has served a great deal of time in the King's service in hot climates. I asked him: "Did you ever know of a picture having been eaten by termites?" He said,

75
"No! But I must be fair. I do remember once a Government report being eaten by termites. But as it came from my lords and masters in Whitehall and therefore probably would have been written by termites, I did not mind".
In so far as this Bill helps these two worries which I have in mind, I give it a cordial welcome; but I wish to reiterate my anxiety that we have taken on a little more than we realise and that we shall find a larger number of houses than we can cope with and for which with, all the goodwill in the world, it will be difficult to find a useful purpose. But with all the goodwill that has been shown this afternoon in your Lordships' House, I am certain we shall find a solution.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness RYDER of WARSAW: My Lords, I should like to join in adding my congratulations and expressing my pleasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon. We all admire her marvellous example of courage and service to others and her speech surely inspires each of us tremendously. What an original idea it was of the late Hugh Dalton in 1946 to allocate from the sale of surplus war stores £50 million to be the basis of the memorial to the dead of the Second World War. But how sad it was that the governments of both political parties forgot about his visionary policy; and how awful it was that the Treasury should have neglected to bring the existence of this sum, earmarked as a war memorial, to the notice of successive Ministers. However, the blackest and bleakest moment occurred in 1957 when the Government of the day filched the original £50 million from the Land Fund and left it with merely the accumulated interest.
How has this interest been used since? As far as I can make out it has been spent in reimbursing the Inland Revenue for works of art et cetera which have been accepted in lieu of tax. Surely, this is no war memorial in the sense that we would recognise it.
However, the Select Committee formed in 1977 to investigate the Treasury's shortcomings made enlightened proposals, many of which I am delighted to see in the present Bill. But what of Recommendation No. 7? Why has this been
76
forgotten? It reads that, as an interim provision, the Government make good the £50 million removed in 1957. It seems to me more than regrettable, particularly when this amount, which was originally allocated in 1946, would be worth today about £250 million.
However, the trustees of the new National Heritage Memorial Fund are to be allocated the sum of approximately £12½ million this year with which they will be expected to attempt to protect and preserve our cultural and historical inheritance in all its forms. What a daunting responsibility faces them; what strength of character, vision, courage, knowledge and other noble virtues the trustees will require! May I, with humility, urge the Government to be very careful in their choice of the men and women who will take on the awesome task and challenge.
One small point bothers me. I suppose it is necessary to have regional representation from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but surely we should be considering Britain as a whole. However, I wish the trustees every possible good fortune and hope that they will never bow the knee to the establishment or the Government of the day. They will certainly need every possible help since their professional secretariat may lack experience. While I appreciate that the trustees will have much power to assist the National Trust and our museums and galleries, they will not themselves be able to act as principals in acquiring properties. Perhaps if they are successful in persuading a reluctant Treasury to hand over more cash, they ought to be able to help a far wider range of worthy heritage cases which do not at present come within the ambit of this Bill.
My Lords, here I must declare an interest. Over many years the small Sue Ryder Foundation has sought to save listed buildings large and small, and especially those of historic interest, from total disrepair and to restore them and use them for those of different age groups who are in desperate need of nursing and care. These houses and gardens are all open to the public but the fact is that under the present circumstances funds are not available for the provision of these beds, nor are funds available for the preservation of these houses.
Of course, I speak only from the experience which I have gained, but the fact is

77
that while we set out to create homes for those who suffer from ill-health, the secondary advantage is that houses of historic interest are preserved. There must be many other similar cases where the preservation of historic houses has come about as a secondary cause. It would be a great pity if, as a result of Government cuts—for which we all understand the need—both the care of the sick and the preservation of our heritage were to suffer under the same hammer together. One could go on to give several examples of neglect today, and, to our distress, our nation has lost over 700 houses, small and large. May I also say how I agree with the positive points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that a beacon has been lit by the payment of £12½ million this April from the Treasury to independent trustees. But the beacon must become brighter with both Government help and private patronage, or all the good that has been started will count for naught. Never should we lose faith again with those who paid the supreme price for their country.
6.13 p.m.
The Marquess of HERTFORD: My Lords, may I add my voice to those congratulations to the two noble Ladies who have joined us and spoken for the first time today. I must confess to being in a slight difficulty because the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk has said almost everything that I had it in mind to say, so my speech really can be quite brief, for which your Lordships may be very thankful.
I of course welcome this Bill although in one respect it does come as a grave disappointment to me. It is, I think, generally accepted that historic houses and their contents form a very important part of our national heritage; but the value from many points of view—aesthetic, cultural, historic, educational, architectural and, in the tourist trade, financial—is enormous. It is also generally accepted that the greatest threat to their future comes from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Yet in this Bill they receive no specific mention at all. Clause 9 is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, pointed out, fairly helpful in
78
this respect, and in particular, subsection (5) of that clause. But I do not feel that it goes far enough.
One of the great attractions of historic houses is the remarkable miscellany of works of art secured by succeeding generations from all over Europe. Many of them may bear no relation to each other, and they may have no obvious connection with the house that they are in, other than the fact that they may have been in it for quite a long time. It must indeed often be difficult to decide whether or not an object does have what the Bill calls a significant association with a particular place.
If works of art are to be taken away from historic houses and given to public museums—most of which are very short of space already—then one effect would be that the power of those houses to attract tourists will be diminished, and the gap which I am afraid nearly always exists between income and expenditure will grow even wider and an ever larger number of houses will disappear, either being pulled down or ceasing to be homes which are on view to the public, or they will become a heavy charge upon the public purse. If a work of art is already on view to the public in an entirely appropriate setting which greatly enhances its appreciation by the general public, then there could surely be no point at all in taking it away.
I would therefore venture to suggest that Clause 9(5) should be redrafted, to say that works of art should be kept where they are unless there are very strong reasons for removing them. Far be it for me to draft an amendment; but I should be very encouraged to know whether the Government will receive that idea with any favour.
6.17 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the two noble Baronesses who made their maiden speeches today, and to say how much we shall look forward to their contributions in the future. I should like also to apologise because, although I have never before spoken for longer than nine minutes in a speech in your Lordships' House, I may go slightly over that target today because I have three points to make.

79
Two of them are simple but the third is a little complicated, and I want to make it carefully so that I do not get it wrong.
I should like first to pay a tribute to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has been a very good friend of the arts during his tenure of office, the public lending right obviously pleases us authors, and now we have this excellent Bill which we have all wholeheartedly welcomed. I should like also to associate with that tribute my noble friend on the Front Bench opposite who played a formidable part in the life of the last Government in making sure that these two measures reach the happy stage that they have today.
My next tribute must be to the late Hugh and Ruth Dalton. The first part of the Bill is an important part, it establishes a principle to which we have all been delighted to give support today—the establishment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The word "memorial" has just been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw. My wife and I were fortunate enough to be friends of the late Sir Hugh and Lady Ruth Dalton. Lord Dalton, as he later became, as the House will remember, was responsible for introducing the original National Land Fund. Hugh Dalton was a very brave soldier on the Italian Front in the First World War, and he bitterly regretted the deaths of so many of his friends in that war, and of so many of his younger friends in the Second World War. He was determined that he would seize the opportunity which, being Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him, to introduce a memorial which he thought was worthy of the people who had died in the two world wars: the preservation and the enhancement of the beauty of our countryside.
His wife, Ruth, was of course a trustee of the National Trust, and a prominent member of the old London County Council, in which she played a tremendous part in getting the Iveagh Bequest into its present excellent condition. Personally, I can think of no more wonderful memorial to these two splendid people than the present Bill. I understand that an amendment may be moved to insert something into the Preamble or the early parts of the Bill. If so, I certainly would
80
give such an amendment my warm personal support.
The second thing in the Bill, which is perhaps the most important of all in the long run is the notion of indemnity. I think I am right in saying that over £75 million has been indemnified so far at a cost of £750, which presumably was the damage to a frame of a picture lent to some museum. I think that now that this principle has been established, which will cost the public little or nothing, the benefits will be enormous. To adapt a parable:
"We sow and we have reaped one hundred thousand fold".
It is pretty good value for public money.
The third part of what I have to say is the really complicated one. This is where I want to speak with some care, possibly with some dullness, and I apologise to your Lordships in advance for that. One of the outstanding merits of this Bill, as I think everybody has said so far, is its preservation in Part II of the principle of the acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax and, equally important, the transfer of its administration from the Treasury to the two Ministers. It is a fact worth stressing that not only the retention of this long-established option, but also its placing under their joint aegis, have met with the most emphatic support not only from your Lordships but from our public museums. Both provisions are generally understood to have been achieved as a consequence of the powerful advocacy of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as the Minister with responsibility for the arts, and of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the Front Bench opposite.
All those who are anxious to reduce to some extent the prospects of the dispersal abroad of much of our cultural inheritance will continue to feel a debt of gratitude that such a far-sighted policy has been pressed for and is now being put into effect. So that is very important. Therefore, I make clear my full support for this principle, and for all that my right honourable friend has done to give this principle life.
But some observations, which concern the disputed question of the correct interpretation of the mechanism laid down in Clause 8(1) and (2) of the Bill

81
for the so-called financing of the acceptance system, may not be out of place. Clause 8(1) gives powers for the two Ministers to pay to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a sum equal to the amount of the tax debt satisfied by the surrender of a property to the Commissioners by a tax debtor. In parenthesis, notwithstanding the permissive form adopted in the provision—that is, the word "may"—it has been stated in the other place on behalf of the Government that such payments would, in practice, be obligatory. So your Lordships might think that the word "may" should be changed to the word "shall". On the face of it, under the Bill, therefore, the Commissioners are paid by the Ministers out of monies voted to them from the Consolidated Fund—that is, from resources raised from the generality of taxpayers—in order to offset those monies which are not available to the Commissioners, because the Commissioners have accepted a property in substitution for cash due to them in satisfaction of a tax debt which has arisen.
Logically, from this it would appear that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, when exercising statutory powers conferred upon them to accept on behalf of the public the surrender of property instead of cash in discharge of a tax debt—in other words, to accept payment in kind—are, nevertheless, also in receipt of taxpayers' money in compensation for the cash which they would have received had those powers not been exercised. This is the transaction which is not altogether accurately described by the Treasury as "reimbursement", but which I must say looks to me, and I think to everybody else, like having it both ways; that is, receiving cash as well as payment in kind.
If this were the end of the story, the payment from the Ministers to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would amount to a doubling of funds raised from taxpayers, in the sense that, while the original tax debtor has discharged his debt by the surrender, according to statute, of acceptable property, funds supplied by the generality of other taxpayers are also drawn upon to effect the cash payment on his behalf. But, of course, that is not the end of the story; it never is when one is dealing with the
82
Treasury. Double entry bookkeeping has been invented.
If we turn to Clause 8(2), we find that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are enjoined to deal with the payments received from Ministers as if they were payments from the private sector on account of capital transfer tax. This, in effect, establishes not only that the payments in question are not in fact payments from outside the public sector, as normal discharges in cash of tax debts would be, but that the commissioners are given no choice but to transmit them to the Consolidated Fund, in exactly the same way as all such cash payments received in the normal course of tax collecting.
Thus, what at first sight would appear to be a genuine authorisation for the public expenditure of voted money is, in actual fact, no more than an accounting device to operate which taxpayers' money is borrowed but never spent, being eventually refunded. In truth, such notional amounts as are intended to be used in this way—as distinct, for example, from grants paid to the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in Part I of the Bill, which would genuinely constitute public expenditure when received—are from their creation earmarked exclusively for that sole purpose. They pass from the Consolidated Fund to the Ministers, and from the Ministers to the commissioners, who have to transmit them back to the Consolidated Fund from which they originated.
Since the emergence from the public sector of the so-called payments is ruled out, and since it is an acknowledged fact that transactions internal to Government cannot by themselves constitute real public expenditure, there can in reality, I submit, be no genuine expenditure of public funds, only those notional metaphysical happenings which are so beloved of the Treasury. This unnecessary rigmarole, in other words, is the outcome of arcane dogma.
Acceptance of property in satisfaction of tax is a transaction which takes place on the revenue side of the ledgers, not on the opposite side; that is, the side relating to public expenditure. When a statutory provision permits the possibility, in certain rare and exceptional circumstances, for the discharge of tax debts in kind rather than

83
in cash, the State is, in fact, refraining from insisting on the raising of cash by the tax debtor in those exceptional circumstances. The reason for this is the sensible one that to insist without any such exceptions on the raising of cash, would be liable to cause damage to a competing national interest, in that it would entail the dispersal by sale, necessarily abroad in many cases, of this country's cultural inheritance.
No one is seriously arguing that a system of this kind should be operated as a so-called open-ended commitment; that is, that there should be no governmental or parliamentary control of the extent, in the quantitative sense, in which this statutory exception to the normal procedures of revenue raising should be used. Nor, of course, has anyone suggested that proper entries, necessarily expressed in pounds, should not be made in the ledgers of the Inland Revenue recording the extent of such recourse in a quantifiable way. And that is, in fact, what would occur, according to the accounting device which is set up under Clause 8 (1) and (2).
In this connection, your Lordships may be amused to hear of a self-evidently nonsensical Treasury convention, which has laid it down that if the Inland Revenue were not to receive something like money to enter in its blessed ledgers, then none other than the Inland Revenue itself is deemed to have committed the misdemeanour of incurring public expenditure by the act of accepting property in satisfaction of tax. However, no one would advocate the infliction of such a stigma as a misdemeanour, unreal though it may be, on the luckless Inland Revenue. In other words, accepting property in lieu of tax counts as public expenditure on those objects which are accepted. That is the point, that when you accept an object in kind it counts as revenue raised, but it also counts as public expenditure.
To sum up, a substantial difference of opinion exists—and I think that, in practice, this will turn out to be a very significant and important point—as to whether the tokens figuring in these "in lieu" transactions represent, in actual practice, as distinct from Treasury theory, real money, the employment of which involves the expenditure outside the public sector of taxpayers' money. But the truth is
84
that what would be paid by the Ministers to the Inland Revenue cannot rate as real money—that is, money voted for and used for public expenditure—since its transfer from the public to the private sector, constituting a purchase, is expressly excluded by the mechanism laid down by the Bill for the Commissioners to pass it to the Consolidated Fund as if it had reached them as a payment of a tax debt from the private sector, which it does not.
However, the Treasury persists in claiming that what takes place is a purchase by the State, despite the fact that any such contention is plainly contrary to the wording of the proposed statute. Not only this, but it has also been claimed on their behalf in another place, perhaps slightly condescendingly, that some honourable Members profess "not to understand" how acceptance of something in lieu involves a sale by the taxpayer. But the truth is precisely the reverse; it is the Treasury itself which professes not to understand that what occurs is not in fact and cannot be by definition anything which could plausibly be termed a sale in the real world.
It was reasonably suggested when the Bill was under discussion in another place that the most straightforward way in which to deal with the problem of accounting and of control—and we fully accept that these are real problems—was to take a leaf out of the French book by adopting a system of units of account. This had the advantage of recognising that a spade is a spade, or a picture is a picture, and so of not misleading Parliament on that score, while providing for a type of governmental and parliamentary control which was specific and open. But the Treasury prefers its own mysteries in the hope that perhaps Parliament and the public may be misled.
In short, the demerit, from our point of view, of Clause 8(1) as drafted is that it all too effectively does what it is presumably intended to do; namely, to obscure the essential fact that the payment is nothing whatever to do with public expenditure but is merely an accounting device to quantify tax payments which have been collected in kind from tax debtors. This is vitally important when public expenditure is quite properly being controlled with cash limits, and what have you, because if this is defined as expenditure

85
and not as tax raising then it will fall very heavily under the public expenditure cash limits.
The beneficial potentialities for the preservation of our cultural inheritance of the system for acceptance in satisfaction of tax, established in Part II of the Bill, are considerable and far-reaching, but they can all too easily be frustrated if your Lordships and the public fail to grasp, and to insist, that the real nature of the decision which may have to be faced from time to time is whether or not to permit the sale of items of our heritage to raise cash for the Revenue in circumstances which inevitably have no direct connection with the established priorities of public expenditure, and which will almost certainly happen during the middle of one of our perennial economic crises.
Continuing to reiterate that the expenditure of public money, accurately so defined, cannot be involved in these transactions, does not however entail any denial of the necessity to keep what is so obviously an accounting device under quantitative control. But persistent attempts to stand the English language and common sense on its head, which I regret to say emanate from the Treasury, ought not to be thought really necessary, or to be so accepted, in order to effect the requisite control.
So with that note of warning and with profound apologies for having gone seven minutes beyond my normal time length, may I say that I have tried to explain why I am a little worried about the accounting procedures in the Bill but that otherwise I welcome the Bill and wish it a very happy passage on to the statute book.
6.33 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: My Lords, may I begin by associating myself with all those noble Lords who have given such a strong welcome to this Bill and at the same time associate myself with other noble Lords who have welcomed and who have so much enjoyed the maiden speeches to which we had the pleasure of listening earlier this afternoon. It would not be possible to imagine two better speakers, both of whom spoke so dramatically and eloquently of particular aspects of the heritage problem with which we are concerned. I hope very
86
much that we shall very often hear the maiden speakers.
We all feel that this Bill is a very great step forward in bringing us up to date with what are two opposing trends of our times, both of which would have been barely credible to an observer from the viewpoint of the 1930s. The first is the astonishing growth of public interest in and concern for our heritage, whether it be beautiful land, plants, trees, birds, animals, houses or their contents and, indeed, works of scientific and historic interest; namely, the object of this Bill. The second is the rate at which the cost of conservation of these things is rising. It really amounts to a tidal wave threatening to engulf us before we can achieve the objects which we all hope will be achieved by this Bill. There really is no time to lose in getting it on to the statute book and appointing trustees with the necessary powers—a point to which I shall return.
A great feature of the Bill, in my view, is the understanding which I believe it incorporates of the value of in situ retention and its recognition that this job of conservation simply cannot be done without the involvement on a large scale of the private owner, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has so clearly described. This is a tremendous achievement. We all recognise at the same time the very great difficulties the Government have in building in provisions of this sort in a proper and balanced way.
There are two important aspects which I hope will be given further attention, and I shall turn to them in a moment. At this point, may I declare my interest as a council member of the National Trust for Scotland. The National Trust see clearly that with the arrival of this Bill and its provisions they and their sister National Trust for England and Wales will lose the almost virtual monopoly of access that they have had up to now under the provisions of the National Land Fund, in that this function will be uplifted and taken over by the trustees. The National Trust could not more warmly welcome this change. They believe that in determining the destiny of much of our heritage the dominant factor should be the trustees and they recognise clearly how much will have to be done.
I was fortunate enough to be present last night at a meeting of the National Trust

87
when we obtained the assistance of a very large number of bodies in Scotland who have followed the progress of this Bill through all its stages. If I counted them correctly, there were 19 separate organisations, including museums, wildlife organisations, those concerned with the retention of small houses and every other kind of interest. The remarkable thing which many would not have expected 20 years ago is the identity of view of all these bodies, be they private owners or public bodies, in almost all respects.
Perhaps I may turn to two particular points upon which I am convinced that some alterations must be made. The first is a point which has been referred to by many noble Lords; namely, the somewhat strange wording of Clauses 4 and 5 in which it appears that permission of Ministers must be sought by the trustees before acquiring or accepting gifts of property. I listened with great care to the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill. It seems that the concern centres upon the view that the fund should not be concerned with owning property for long periods. I am sure that everybody agrees with this view.
I would ask that consideration should be given to the role which the trustees are being asked to play. The trustees ought to be able to take, among many other risks, the risk of acquiring property for a minimal period, and I feel that it should be for not less than one year. This will be necessary if they are to get help from others to support them with a matching effort in terms of finding solutions for the destiny of much property which will be the subject of concern. I believe that it will be quite impossible for Ministers to be caught up in each and every decision as to whether the trustees can retain for a short while—because that is all that will be asked for—property in this way. I believe it to be irrational and impractical and not at all in conformity with the scale and scope of the responsibilities the trustees are to be asked to discharge if they cannot be given this power. If it is felt that a limit should be placed upon this power, surely something could be done by limiting the expenditure in such a case to a percentage of the funds at the disposal of the National Heritage
88
Memorial Fund at any one time. A limit could be placed upon the amount that might be used for purchase. If all-party support for this view were necessary—and it would certainly come—I should like to draw attention to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who illustrated this so very clearly from her own experience, and also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson from his different viewpoint of experience.
Turning now to Part II of the Bill, Clause 12 refers to the Finance Act 1975, Schedule 4, which gives the test for objects to be accepted in lieu of tax—that is, would the object be a pre-eminent addition to a public collection, whether national, local authority or university? That is difficult enough, but the pre-eminent test is now complicated by the in situ provision, which involves the whole problem of the pre-eminence of an object or group of objects in the context of an historic house. The present system whereby a single expert adviser is asked to make a judgment has already given rise to dissatisfaction. It sounds quite right that the Minister should take advice—and that is all he is doing—but if it is a single view it amounts to more than advice, and I believe that in the operation of this provision we are placing an intolerable responsibility and burden on advisers who frequently, in the context of their task, are not by any means disinterested parties. The ideal way for this to be dealt with is to bring the trustees into the question. I recognise the difficulties, but they ought to be brought in at the earlier stage and I hope this can be re-examined. If that proved to be quite impossible, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries already recommends on the allocation of objects once they have been accepted, and it would seem logical that recommendations on acceptance should also be made by them.
That is all that I wish to say in detail at this late hour, but I should just like to express the hope that the Bill may come into effect as soon as possible in view of the shortage of time we have to deal with this problem, to which I referred earlier.
6.43 p.m.
Lord CRATHORNE: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to join other noble

89
Lords in congratulating our two maiden speakers today and also to welcome this Bill. The fact that there has been such widespread agreement in all parts of this House, and indeed in another place, not only about the aims of the Bill but also about its content, surely augurs well for the heritage. Much of the ground has been covered in excellent speeches today and I merely want to re-emphasise one or two particular points.
There is no doubt that this is the most important piece of legislation for the heritage but it is also important to point out that on its own it is not really sufficient and it must be part of a comprehensive policy which should include sensible fiscal measures such as have been mentioned today and I do not see that this is the time to enumerate them again.
This fund can really only ever be a safety net—a welcome one but its resources are relatively modest. For instance, if two major houses came up at the same moment for rescue the fund would begin to look very small, although I was pleased to hear from the Minister earlier that in such an instance money might be made available from other sources. Obviously one hopes that the fund will expand as rapidly as possible. Putting it at its basest level we get such marvellous value for money from our heritage. The number of tourists and the money that they spend here every year is out of all proportion to the money which any Government may have to spend on the heritage. As we know, people come here not for our weather but for the very things which we are trying to preserve by this Bill.
The in situ provision is obviously greatly to be welcomed and one thinks of appalling instances such as that of Althorp, where those marvellous Van Dycks were taken from the walls for which they were painted by Van Dyck. Let us hope that this Bill will prevent anything like that ever happening again. I lecture every year in America on English country houses and I have always used slides of that particular Long Gallery: I can hardly bear to think of the fact that those Van Dycks are not there any more.
One or two noble Lords have touched on the importance of trusting the trustees. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of
90
Harwood, made that point and I think it is vitally important that the trustees can act very speedily. As someone who has been involved in the art business for many years I know how significant that requirement is and I just wonder whether some of the procedures involving trustees and Ministers and the Treasury are not rather too complex, but again I do not think this is the moment to expand on that.
I also hope that the trustees will be drawn from a very wide circle of people. One point which has not been raised today is the fact that the Government did not include any provision enabling the chairman and the trustees, either now or in the future, to be remunerated in however modest a way that might be. There is an excellent tradition in this country of unpaid public service but is it correct that perhaps the right man for the job as chairman should be prevented from becoming chairman because of his own financial circumstances? Another point which has not been mentioned, although it is not strictly related to the Bill, is this: has the Minister considered where the heritage fund will be housed? I should like to make a plea that it should be not in a large concrete office block somewhere but in a building suitable to the task they are undertaking; perhaps there may be the possibility of rescuing a suitable building for the trustees and those administering the fund.
I am sure everyone will be pleased about the indemnity provisions. There is just one point I should like to raise on that: the Minister mentioned earlier today that there would be a limit to the amount of the Government indemnity and he very skilfully did not tell us what that would be. I think at this moment the figure of items indemnified runs to about £72 million. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what is his feeling about that.
Another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, which I should like to mention relates to the purchase of easements, rights of way and sporting rights. As a member of the Yorkshire regional committee of the National Trust I know how important that point is and I hope that the Minister will look into it. I should like to end as everyone has ended, by wishing the Bill well. This is surely a good day for our heritage.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, because she really gave us some of her thoughts about this matter. We rarely hear expressions of people's thoughts; we hear their expressions of opinion. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, from whom now I think we shall get some education about Scotland, which will not do us any harm.
May I refer first to the Heritage Committee in the House of Commons. I think we should not let this debate pass without paying particular tribute to that committee. When I was in the other place we worked very hard on it and I am still a member of it. It has done a tremendous amount to get this Bill put on the statute book, and I should like that fact to be recognised.
I should like to quote from Kipling's Children's Song:
"That they may build from age to age an undefiled heritage".
That is what we are trying to do for the future.
Then from the Book of Common Prayer:
"The lot has fallen unto me in a fair ground—yea, I have a goodly heritage".
So we have quite contented people in this country.
Clause 3 is of particular interest because it defines the national heritage to include any land or building which in the opinion of the trustees is of outstanding scenic, historic, aesthetic, architectural or scientific interest. What about archeological interest? Surely this is where our heritage begins. Perhaps when we come to the Committee stage we may be able to give consideration to that. One thinks of Stonehenge, which was built even before the palaces in Crete. There we have a very worthwhile heritage that we can consider and study in the future. There are two very splendid museums, one in Devizes, founded in 1853, which is still contributing to findings and archeological matters. They are supported mostly by voluntary contributions. Another one, at Avebury, belongs to the National Trust. These two museums have done a great deal to explain to us our beginnings in this country.
92
I should like to know whether the Council for the Protection of Rural England will be able to apply for help in regard to ancient buildings such as barns, farmyards and so on. For example, in Wiltshire there are a great many very ancient barns and some mills, some mentioned in the Domesday Book. Many of them are on land belonging to the Ministry of Defence, and at one time the Ministry used to keep them up. They are scheduled and listed. Now they tell me they have no money. I have seen everybody I can about it, including the PSA, but nothing has happened, and I regret that many of these structures are being pulled down. Some of them are quite unique; they are built on staggels, and if they are not repaired fairly soon they will fall to pieces. I should like consideration to be given to whether they could be given a grant through the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Then, of course, there has been a great attack upon trees. In one valley in Wiltshire 40,000 elm trees have been cut down in a 7-mile radius. Trees are part of our heritage. Thank goodness, the disease has not attacked oaks, because they take so long to grow. In Wiltshire there is a Small Trees Trust. I wonder whether these various trusts can be helped with the reconditioning of the land and the replanting of trees.
I should like also to discuss the question of industry. I feel that it is necessary that we take far more interest in the relics we have from industry. I know that a great many have been thrown away very recently because there is nowhere to house them. I would suggest that far more contributions and far more help could be got from the general public. For example, the Plym River had trees, a forest, on either side. It was decided to sell it as a private property and it was going to be used for commercial forestry. This would have ruined the walks for people and ruined the fishing. We formed a committee in Plymouth and raised over £8,000 in two months. Plymouth is not the easiest town in which to raise money, especially not in this sphere. This money was handed to the National Trust and the local authority agreed to pay for a forester to look after the property. I suggest that we could do more of this if the interest of the general public was

93
aroused and with the assistance of the National Trust and other organisations.
If I may turn to the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Dockyards, which are over 300 years old, have the most fascinating buildings and also museums within their walls. I was down in Portsmouth this morning and I was able to see some of these beautiful things. These museums are kept up mainly from contributions from Americans. In Devonport, for example, there is the Rope Walk and also still the gallows. I am against hanging, but I think it useful to have available specimens like these which were used for hanging French prisoners of war in earlier days. In that way we can show future generations what life was like in this country. There are very many small houses, cottages, which could very well be the subject of help. I know of one in which an old lady was living. It had a thatched roof. She could not get it repaired, and eventually we had to raise contributions. She was sitting there one day when a duck which had nested in the roof fell down on the Sunday lunch. This cottage was really well worth saving. We got enough people together, with a small contribution from the local authority, in order that this could be done. I think we should do far more in this way to help ourselves.
As was mentioned by the last speaker, many tourists come to this country, which I personally think has the finest scenery in the world. We have some beautiful houses like Chatsworth and Wilton which are really English from beginning to end. I am not very sorry that Mentmore was up for sale. I think that it alerted everybody so that we got on with something, but it was not, in my opinion, a very beautiful house, and a great many things in it were not British. I would much sooner that we turned our attention to Turner, to Gainsborough, to Fernley, to Stubbs, to Reynolds—things that really are our heritage—by which to show our people as they are in this country.
I should like now to mention the question of Laxton. I understand that since 1952 it has been owned by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is a fine example of the mediaeval open system of cultivation. I should like to know from my noble friend whether it is true that the Government are thinking of selling it. I think to do so would be very unfortunate. I hope it
94
will not be sold but will be kept as it is, because it is working, it is in use by the local people.
As a final point, I think I am right in saying that my noble friend said that, unlike most monies in this case if it was not spent by the end of the year it would not be handed back to the Treasury. May I congratulate him. As a civil servant, as I once was, it was absolutely maddening at the end of the year, if you had a little money left, to have to rush round trying to find something to spend it on, otherwise it went back to the Treasury. I should like to congratulate him on that aspect and thank him very much for giving me that reply.
6.58 p.m.
The Viscount of ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, we are nearly at the end of a long list, and I know you hope I will not detain you for very long. First of all, I must join other speakers in congratulating the two noble Ladies who have made their maiden speeches today. First, I congratulate Lady Airey, perhaps particularly because of her tribute to the wives of those who look after our heritage, a remark that I will take home, where I know it will be very welcome indeed; and, secondly, I thank Lady Saltoun for her fine championship of the problems of those of us who live in the North and East of Scotland and have our problems with smaller houses.
I believe this to be one of the most important pieces of legislation for safeguarding our heritage to have come before us for at least a decade, if not longer. It has been welcomed on all sides, and I certainly endorse that welcome. We all have a variety of views as to what our heritage means, as a result of our background and upbringing and for many other reasons. It will mean different things to different people. I confess to being almost a philistine in matters of art, music and literature, even though I think I know what I want or like, but I do have an abiding love of the countryside in all its dimensions. Consequently, I shall address myself to the care of our rural and environmental heritage, as I understand it. In that connection, I was particularly gratified to hear the last speaker mention Laxton Fields, which I know well and which I should like to see preserved in some way and not just sold to the highest bidder.

95
If I seem prejudiced then I hope that your Lordships will excuse me, but the reason is that I was born and brought up and educated and trained for my profession and present occupation as a country Scot. I have served with the Countryside Commission for Scotland and I have worked for the Nature Conservancy in Scotland. In fact, although the balance has been redressed to some extent this afternoon, I fear that too much time has been spent during the progress of this Bill so far in considering the conservation and care of the objects and the bits and pieces of our heritage and their future in suitable buildings, and too little time on the heritage within our countryside.
The Scottish dimension demands a much wider view and more thought for the care and future of the landscapes, natural history and rural settings of our heritage in which the houses, castles, country churches of Scotland—of all denominations, not just the Church of England, as we heard earlier—and their contents all have a part to play. Not only has Scotland the most extensive areas of wild and beautiful countryside in the United Kingdom, and proportionately a greater amount of areas of natural scientific interest, but it is in Scotland that those landscapes and places of natural history interest can and must play their part in the contemporary and ongoing economic health of the countryside.
I should like to take historic gardens as an example to illustrate that last point. In a recently published survey of scenic and historic gardens, the author points up the anomaly in recent, if not contemporary, Government attitudes to the heritage. Fewer and fewer gardeners are being recruited to work in private gardens, which are regarded as luxuries, and no help can be given to what is deemed a personal extravagance. On the other hand, it is Government policy to preserve the heritage garden and encourage rural employment. Some compromise must be achieved.
Mention has been made of the purpose of the heritage. I see our heritage, especially in a rural setting, not as some sort of cultural island, but as a means of sustaining employment and the viability of remoter areas. In that regard its
96
sensible use as an attraction to visitors can alone help sustain the economy. I hope that it is firmly grasped by all concerned with this legislation that, if our heritage is to live today and in the future, we must contrive ways in which it can play its part in our daily lives.
We have the good fortune in Scotland to be able to work together to that end. Often, indeed mostly, led by our own National Trust for Scotland, as has been mentioned already, we see a coming together of activities and management plans complementing each other, whereby charitable bodies, Government agencies and private individuals co-operate to achieve just that integrated use of our heritage that I feel is so important, indeed vital, to its future wellbeing.
My concern about the future and the way in which this legislation will help or not, can be summed up in the following way: the National Trusts will not be able to care for the future of our heritage on their own. The care and protection of it will remain in other hands and mostly will still have to be in those of private families and individuals, as has already been mentioned so often. The future must therefore, depend on other legislative and fiscal attitudes to land ownership. Having said that, there will still be areas of great natural beauty or historic or scientific interest that will inevitably come on to the market and I do not see where the owners of last resort can come from. I think that this is a matter to which we must all give attention. My own personal wish is that more use will be made by landowners of charitable land trusts—and again those have been mentioned—which will meet all criteria as eligible and satisfactory means of safeguarding a local community interest in an heritage property for the benefit of the nation.
I am delighted that the fund is to be managed by independent trustees, but the choice of the trustees of this fund is another matter of importance and naturally I should like to see a strong representation from Scotland because of the special claims which I have outlined for that country. Let us not forget that the safeguarding of landscapes of outstanding beauty was fundamental to the aims of the creator of the National Land Fund, and again I endorse everything that everyone has said so far this afternoon about the

97
original objectives of the fund. I am delighted that the additional word "Memorial" has been added to its title. I should like to make the special plea that, within the use of the fund, some priority is given, when the opportunity occurs, to securing areas of scenic beauty or nature conservation interest, and that they should be given as much attention as the other objects of historical and heritage interest to which we have been addressing ourselves.
The trustees, their regard for our rural heritage and their actions as a meaningful charitable trust, will inevitably depend upon their composition, but also upon the guidance given them by Government. It is my fervent hope that the trustees will see, as part of their purpose, the importance of playing the significant role in the whole complex activity of safeguarding our heritage that existing agencies and trusts already play in an integrated and co-operative way. I believe that the trustees must enter into the main stream of daily thought and planning and provide constructive help and guidance for the great objectives that bring us here today to welcome the Bill.
As unfortunately I shall not be able to be present during the Committee Stage I should like to deal with just two detailed points. Under Clause 4:
"The Trustees shall not retain any property acquired by them … except in such cases and for such period as either of the Ministers may allow".
In Clause 5 it says that they shall not accept a gift, other than money, except under a similar constraint. I believe that once again this is possibly an acceptable practice in cases of objects of art, but it will cause the utmost difficulty when it is proposed to acquire land or accept it as a gift. Delays do abound in decision-making over land. The trustees should be trusted, as others have said, not to have to seek prior approval for acquisition or the receipt of gifts of land and there should be a specified period of time during which they can hold land before approval is required. Again, as regards Clause 14, I believe that the future has been preempted by a ministerial letter quoted in another place which appears to put museums in a privileged consultative position, whereas all that part of the heritage that is not the concern of museums—and again I refer particularly to the countryside—is put at a disadvantage. I would imagine that, depending on what
98
is meant by "any functions" in Clause 14(1), countryside interests would at least want to be assured that my belief is misplaced or that "any functions" of concern to them could be transferred to the trustees as early as possible.
I do not want to appear to be carping on matters of detail, because as everyone else this afternoon has done, I wish the Bill well. I also hope that nothing that I have said will appear to be too partisan or too much like special pleading. This Bill is a notable and truly welcome first step towards the future care and conservation of our heritage and as such it has my wholehearted support.
7.9 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, when I put my name down very late to speak in this debate I was perfectly aware that much of what I had to say, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would be nibbled away at during the course of the speeches by a large number of noble Lords. However, I had hardly expected to be stripped naked, as it were, in the presence of two maiden Ladies who we all congratulate for having given us the benefit of their wise advice on this particular occasion, and we hope that we shall hear from them very often in the future.
I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that I am left with one tiny scrap of modesty. It is that I have a new interest to declare which very much pertains to the subject of this Bill. For my sins I have recently been made the vice-chairman of an organisation called the Council for Environmental Conservation, COENCO for short. This comprises nongovernmental organisations, as they are so often called, spanning the whole spectrum, from pure nature conservation, in the shape of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the SPNC or the World Wildlife Fund, through the National Trust and the National Trust of Scotland, to the Councils for the Protection of Rural England and Rural Wales. We cover a complete range of the various specialised non-governmental organisations within our environmental remit.
Everyone in those organisations and outside them to whom I have spoken about the Bill is very pleased that it has come as far and as fast as it has after

99
what, in the last two years, can only be described as a very shaky start. However, everyone was rather concerned that the land and building interests would not be as fully covered as we have learned this afternoon it is intended that they will be by my noble friend the Minister and his right honourable friends. That is all very well and all very fine.
However, I am afraid that I still have some rather niggling doubts, one in particular. During the course of his speech on the Report stage in another place, my noble friend's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave the firm assurance that he would not act under Clause 14, which is the arrangement whereby the new powers of the two Ministers—perhaps I should say the five Ministers if we include the Regional Ministers—are transferred to the trustees of the fund without the willing consent of the museums. As a conservationist and as someone passionately interested in land and buildings and all that goes into them and surrounds them, that is something that causes me not a little concern. I hope that this evening my noble friend will be able to give me the assurance that when these powers are, as I hope they will be, transferred to the trustee of the fund all the relevant interests will be consulted and be found willing, and not just one section of them.
7.14 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for failing to put my name down on the list of speakers at an early stage in this debate. I do not propose to make a speech but merely to ask a question arising from some of the speeches that have been made this afternoon. First, I must declare an interest. I am a trustee of the Scottish Civic Trust and I attended a meeting last night with the trust at which the business covered two main items. First, we were identifying buildings of some architectural merit in order that they might be protected; secondly, we were substantially engaged in raising money in order to carry out that function. I wonder whether it would be possible within this Bill for the trustees to make funds available to organisations, such as the Civic Trust, which are engaged in activities which are complementary and
100
ancillary to the work and functions of the trustees.
7.15 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, ever since the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee was published in March 1978, many of us, myself included, have been thinking about this Bill. I wish to say at the beginning of my speech that it has gone better than I ever dared to think it would. There were many very difficult problems and they seem very largely to have been surmounted. I congratulate wholeheartedly the Minister, his representative here and the Government.
Having said that, may I pause for one moment to say how delightful I thought our two maiden speeches were. I was extremely pleased with Lady Airey's description of herself as chatelaine, cook, nanny and gardener. This is a common position among wives and is seldom recognised. I was rather worried by the picture which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, painted of the difficulties of mending roofs in distant places with inflation rising as it is. They were two most interesting speeches, most charming and both contained a good many questions which require answers. Luckily, it is not my business this evening to answer them.
I am particularly glad that the results have been so successful because the arts have always been a bipartisan job in this country, and I hope that they always remain so. I think that both I and the present Minister have observed this throughout. We hope to go on doing so. In the course of the debate someone described it as "ecumenical"; I think that there is a sense in which it is. I am particularly glad that the Minister has been successful in persuading his somewhat philistine colleagues to keep to the figure of £15 million in our, the Labour Party's White Paper. After all, it restores what remains of a fund which was established by my party, through Hugh Dalton in 1946, as a thanks offering for victory and a war memorial, and which was cynically reduced to £10 million from £60 million by the party opposite in 1957 through Mr. Enoch Powell. Having just said that we are bipartisan, this is not the preliminary to a party attack. But

101
a point worth making is that we managed to persuade our colleagues in the harsh financial climate that they were in to set aside £15 million. To his credit, be it said that the present Minister has held his, in my opinion, far more difficult colleagues to the same figure. The figure has grown through interest to £15½ million.
I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to answer my question, but I ask it without any vicious intention. In spite of the talk of further cuts, can he assure us that this figure will be sacred and immune from further cuts? I am the second speaker from these Benches and I suppose the second speaker this evening who does not have an ancestral house of the faintest interest—I have a house which is on List B in London, which hardly counts at all, and I have built two others. I am afraid that both my noble friend Lady Stedman and I are almost unique in this debate in not being owners of ancestral homes. Therefore, I hope that any little flavour of difference here will not be resented.
I am particularly glad at being able to congratulate the Minister wholeheartedly, because I refrained from attacking him when he was obliged to make that terrible retrospective cut of £1,100,000 to the Arts Council's three-month old grant. I knew that he was as unhappy at disappointing our hopes and his own (very freely expressed as they were) as we all were, and I saw no point in rubbing it in.
I think it is true that the arts, in spite o their incomprehensible preference for a Tory over a Labour Administration, have been noticeably ill at ease under the new régime. Indeed, the Arts Council have still not been told what their grant for the coming year is to be, which leaves them in a parlous position. If I remember aright, I let the chairman know unofficially in 1978 before Christmas what his grant would be. These are the sort of problems one has, particularly when a new administration comes in thinking things are a good deal easier than they are.
I thought it was a triumph—and I am going to talk for a minute or two about what happened before the election because I know more about it, and it is part of our bipartisan tradition that we start something and the other side goes on with it—when our Government agreed in that
102
harsh financial climate to put up what amounts to £15 million of new money as a reserve fund for the national heritage. I know that to laymen it did not seem like new money. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has left me a good deal puzzled as to the truth about this, but the important thing is it felt like new money to the Treasury and it is that which matters. Like the
"…Christian scientist at Deal,
Who admitted though pain is not real,
When I sit on a pin
And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel".
Anyway, we got agreement and issued a White Paper undertaking to put £15 million into a National Heritage Fund to be administered by independent trustees, and to be topped up annually by £5 million if needed. This the Minister has succeeded in maintaining intact, and I congratulate him.
This Bill is indeed an improvement in two ways on our White Paper, though not I think on what would have appeared in our Bill had it ever come to pass. It is better, in that it has left the in lieu procedure more or less as it was. Here for the record I should like to go into a few details. When we achieved our objective of finding this money it was felt that as the Expenditure Committee had made it clear that it thought it a mistake for Treasury Ministers to take aesthetic decisions—a point underlined by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, earlier today—it would be right to agree to the independent trustees administering the fund, but they should take the lot and relieve Treasury Ministers of the in lieu procedure as well.
This left us with some serious difficulties as to how the procedure had best be changed, so we gave a promise in the White Paper that individual vendors and purchasing bodies should not be worse off than they would have been under the existing procedure, and in the meantime we began intensive discussions with the arts world as to how best to effect this in the forthcoming Bill. However, some people seemed to have thought that we were insincere and trying to put through a change to their disadvantage. I was accused of bad faith on several occasions, and our assurances were treated as dishonest.
On the last day of the Session I was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe,

103
in a Written Answer that I thought we had got agreement all round to a method which would be satisfactory, and it is interesting that it is in fact the method envisaged in Clause 14 of the present Bill as a possible development, which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was saying in fact he hoped would come off. That is a little defensive statement after a long period of extremely distasteful hesitancy on our part when we were not in a position to go further.
The second improvement in this Bill over our White Paper is in the wide increase in indemnities. We made the first advance here in 1973–74 when we got agreement for indemnities to cover the loans of objects from national to provincial museums and galleries. We took it a stage further when we arranged indemnity for the Royal Academy at the end of 1978 for their splendid postimpressionist exhibition, and now this Bill extends it very much further to cover pretty well all that we have ever asked for. It is a most valuable and important extension, and I congratulate the Minister most heartily.
May I turn now to one or two detailed points. First, I am not entirely happy about the name. I think it is essential that reference should be made to the objective of the Dalton Fund, but I think my honourable friend Mr. Dalyell, when he put up the first amendment about this, suggested that it should be in the form of words in the Bill. I am going to put up a form of words as an amendment, which I am not going to discuss now. We shall discuss it later, but I shall not press it if the House does not agree. I do not like the "National Heritage Memorial Fund". I think the "National Heritage Fund" is better, so long as the Bill contains what we want in it.
As the President—the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, was kind enough to refer to this—of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, let me say that we were a bit worried, but Clause 3 satisfied us totally. It gives "scenic" and "scientific", though I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that we probably should have "archeological". If she does not, I think I shall put down an amendment about this. One noble Lord spoke about the control of public access.
104
We want something in to make it clear that we do not only have to expand, we can also reduce public access if necessary. The inclusion of nature conservation gives us everything I think we could want, and so I think that Clause 3 is extremely satisfactory.
Clause 4 is a worry. I am not satisfied with it. It is the one clause that people have been a bit critical of here. It seems to me that the trustees should be allowed to buy and hold for a limited period. Somebody suggested a year. I would suggest a month. The kind of situation one visualises is an exquisite piece of furniture coming up suddenly at auction. The V & A want it and have spent their grant. The trustees go in and buy it for them. Equally, if we have a wetland which is being sold somewhere and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds cannot afford to buy it, the trustees ought to be able to buy it for them provided it is handed over in good time. I shall discuss this with other interested noble Lords, but I think we want something more here. I do not know whether anybody will agree.
I want to say a word—I have missed the second act of Othello so I can go on—about the in lieu allocation in Part II. The position is that £3 million or so is put aside for the in lieu. It always used to be £3½ million, but I am not going to quibble about that. If it is not all spent it reverts to the Heritage Trust. That is very good. But if it is all spent there is no reversion in the other direction. The Heritage—which probably will not all be spent because it is a large sum—cannot be added to the in lieu for reasons of a technical kind which I have forgotten but which seem to me satisfactory.
So Ministers have to turn either to savings, which is a very uncomfortable turning to have to make—I had to do it once or twice, but one does not want to make them do it too much because they should be doing it already—or to private sales, which is available at the moment, or, in the end, to special grants. But people worry about the amount of money available under the in lieu.
I did a little sum from page 5 of the report of the Estimates Committee, which contains everything that has been spent from the Land Fund in the last 20 years. I did the last four years and from 1974–75

105
to 1977–78, only £1·2 million was spent on property and only £2·4 million on chattels; and of the latter, £300,000 really belonged to the first figure because it was chattels bought in situ. So the true figure is £1·5 million for the environment and £2·1 million for the arts, and that is over three years. I do not think it will be long before we exceed the £3 million about which we are talking, but it is probably rather unreasonable to say that at this moment, when the last figures—which are admittedly two years old—were £700,000 for the one and £500,000 for the other, and that is an interesting and important point which should be made.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to take up a few points from the debate. One noble Lord asked whether the Minister would give us in his reply the upper limit of indemnities. It would be interesting to know what sort of figure the Government have in mind; I do not suppose the noble Lord will give it, but there is never any harm in asking. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, suggested that the word "endow" should be in, and I think I agree with him, but we shall have to consider that further. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that the National Art Collection Fund and the National Libraries Fund should be possible recipients. I see no reason against that and many for it; I am sure that can be agreed and I hope we shall have a Government amendment to that effect.
I was very interested in the talk by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester about cathedral museums and libraries. I have seen a few, they are marvellous and they should be treated like all other museums and libraries. Actually I thought they were, but perhaps the Minister will look into that to see whether, if they are not, under this Bill they would be reasonable recipients.
The question which worried a number of noble Lords was that of local preeminence. The Dartington Reynolds is the classic case; a goodish Reynolds, of which we have an enormous number in this country, in an enormous long gallery which was more or less built round it. It was not, of course, because it is Elizabethan. It has been there ever since it was painted and it was turned down as not being pre-eminent. It was perfectly
106
clearly pre-eminent in Lincolnshire and it was perfectly clear that the answer which one noble Lord put up—that a museum locally should take responsibility for it and look after it—was right.
As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I do not think it is any good asking for the moon. I think we have done jolly well to get £15 million, with £5½ million a year after that, out of this Government in these conditions. I will not therefore add my weight to that, although I should like some philosopher—Bernard Williams or somebody like that—to sort out the real truth; I am not satisfied that the Treasury answer might not stand up.
It is time we heard the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. I would say, in conclusion, that I have had a good deal to do with artistic people, and they do not agree very easily, but we have not had a single dissident word here from the land-owner or peasant; we have all agreed on the importance of the Bill and we wish it the fastest possible translation into reality.
7.34 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this debate has been most useful and constructive, and I have listened with the greatest interest to all the speeches that have been made by noble Lords in all parts of the House. Like other noble Lords, I wish at the outset to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, both of whom are good friends of mine, and I have known Lady Saltoun and her husband for 40 years. It is clear that they will be in your Lordships' House a lot; they will be most welcome here, as they have been assured by all noble Lords.
To deal with the last speaker first, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings bridge, is an absolute saint. I canonised the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, once before she left office, but I must thank Lord Donaldson on this occasion because he made a really responsible Minister of the Arts speech, answering half the questions, and for that I can only say, "Thank you very much". I am most grateful to him for his praise of my right honourable friend and his appreciation of the points

107
involved in the Bill, because he knows full well, as he explained, what has been involved, and I am most grateful to him for the way he put it over.
He asked whether I thought the figure was sacred. If my right honourable friend's word is to be believed, and I do believe it, then unless the cow jumps over the moon or something awful like that, then, yes, it is sacred. As for the small point he made about, for example, the V&A needing a piece of furniture, as I understand it the trustees have no need to go to the Minister; they can give a grant to the V&A. That is what they are there for.
For the noble Lord's masterly treatise on the subject of "in lieu", I am most grateful. On the upper limits of indemnity I do not think we have in mind any particular figure that I have heard; it is something which, as I said in my opening remarks, will be looked at and evaluated so as to know what we are liable for, but I do not think at the moment there is any particular figure in mind. We already have indemnities for all the big museums, and it will be a quantification of that sort. I do not anticipate any particular trouble on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, asked—and again, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, half answered this—about the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee; that the £50 million removed in 1957 should be restored as resources permitted. As she and your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on Third Reading in another place that he would be delighted to be able to do so but that it was just not practical in the present economic conditions.
The noble Lords, Lord Gibson and Lord Winstanley, asked why endowments were not provided for in Clause 3. The answer is that they are specifically provided for in Clause 3(6), which was deliberately inserted in Committee in another place in response to concern which had been expressed on that point.
My noble friend Lady Airey showed, in a most notable and wonderfully appropriate maiden speech, that none of us can doubt the very deep commitment to
108
the heritage which she shared with her late husband. Her enthusiasm for the smaller manor houses is something which all concerned with the heritage must share, and I have no doubt that that will be reflected by the trustees of the fund. Several other noble Lords also expressed worry for the small houses and small castles in what was called by one noble Lord "the tribal areas". These smaller houses will of course often be suitable for purchase by private buyers, but the best may then fall to be considered by the trustees.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, asked why the National Art Collections Fund was not mentioned as being eligible to receive works of art from the National Heritage Fund trustees. The answer is that the new fund is designed to help by providing money for the ultimate recipients of heritage objects. The National Art Collections Fund is an outstanding example of those bodies which have themselves raised and provided money to help the ultimate recipients to acquire heritage objects. The new fund will stand alongside the National Arts Collections Fund, the Pilgrims Trust, the Carnegie Trust Fund, the Friends of the National Libraries and other such bodies. It will not be an ultimate repository of works of art.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester raised the problem of cathedrals. I trust that the partnership between the trustees and the Churches to which the right reverend Prelate referred will be very evident indeed. We had intended in the Bill to cover cathedral treasuries and libraries, and we shall give further consideration to ensuring that they are so covered.
Several noble Lords and noble Baronesses have expressed anxiety about the trustees being fettered. I am most anxious to stress that the trustees will have a completely unfettered discretion to enable others to purchase objects or property. If they wish to purchase anything themselves—perhaps something needed in exceptional situations—agreement with Ministers would be needed. This is surely appropriate when trustee ownership is not desirable in itself, but is to be used in an emergency.

109
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Skelmersdale, the noble Marquess, Lord Hertford, and probably some others, too, expressed worry about the retention of goods in situ in their historic homes, which were accepted in lieu. I can reassure the noble Duke and the noble Lords that it will be possible both for chattels and pictures to be accepted in lieu of taxation, and, if they have strong association with particular houses, for them to be returned to those houses while remaining in the ownership of a local or national museum. This has always been possible, but we are now anxious to see it happen on a regular basis. The Government's proposal in Clause 9(5), and the proposals on indemnification will facilitate this.
The noble Duke spoke about pictures that he might have in his charitable trust at Arundel, but which belong perhaps to Chichester Museum. Chichester Museum would be very happy for the pictures to be in their historic situation at Arundel Castle. Similarly, in Yorkshire there may be famous objets d'art or pictures which are technically in the ownership of Temple Newsam, but which are lodged at Castle Howard. There is no problem here.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested that under Clause 9(1) the disposal of objects accepted in lieu of tax was decided on the advice of officials; indeed, in some cases only one official. I can reassure your Lordships that advice on the allocation of such objects is always sought from the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts; and the majority of the items are allocated to institutions outside London.
My noble friend Lord Cottesloe suggested that it was wrong that objects accepted in lieu should be disposed of subject to conditions laid down by the Government, but that it was right to lay down conditions as to the disposal of land and buildings. I do not see why a distinction should be drawn in this way. When property is accepted by the State and allocated to a suitable recipient, it surely behoves the Government to ensure that it is adequately safeguarded in the interests of the taxpayer. Some national museums and galleries obviously have in their trust deeds
110
provisions which make it unnecessary to seek such undertakings as to conservation, display and indeed retention of the object in question, but other museums, galleries and similar bodies may not be so restricted by their trust deeds or memoranda of association. In these cases, which in practice involve the vast majority of objects accepted in lieu of tax, it is necessary to obtain undertakings, and the Government could not agree to dispense with their powers under the Bill to require such undertakings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked in particular about capital gains tax and VAT. I have taken careful note of her points about the division of the benefit of tax exemption of such property which is sold by private treaty or offered in lieu. As the noble Baroness will be well aware, these are really matters for my Treasury colleagues, and I assure her that I shall draw to their attention those points as well as other matters of taxation that have been raised in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, also took us to task a little because of slowness in regard to Baddesley Clinton. We came to power only in June, if I remember aright—
Several noble Lords: May.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I beg your Lordships' pardon—in May. In July we took a decision in principle to go ahead with what the noble Baroness's Government had decided—namely, to help—and we were negotiating busily with the owner who, probably quite rightly, wanted certain conditions made. We had to have certain valuations by experts of pictures and various objets d'art, and all this took time. We finally reached agreement in November, and now it is merely a matter of the solicitors drawing up the contract as to what we have actually agreed. So I hope that the noble Baroness will not think too badly about us.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft spoke about museums being able to lend works of art to embassies. This matter is slightly outside the nature of the Bill, but I should point out to him that there is a very good Government collection, which was in the hands of the Department of the Environment. In fact in 1972–73 I was chairman of the Government buying committee of which at that time my noble

111
friend Lord Cottesloe was a distinguished member. We had a budget—which is still there—of £100,000 for buying works of art. At that time I had a list of all the pictures owned by the British Government for Ministries, embassies and consulates, and details of where they were. This is a very fine collection, and I was very surprised to learn that my noble friend Lord Mancroft thought that some of the embassies were very badly "pictured". From my experience they contain extremely good pictures, and if they have not—
Lord MANCROFT: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, I should like to point out that I was speaking of 20 years ago. Perhaps the fuss I made then has made the noble Lord behave in such a splendid way now.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I was going to say that if an embassy does not have adequate pictures, it is usually the fault of the Ambassador who has not asked for them or has returned them; some Ambassadors return things which they do not like. That is not a matter for the Government. The Government provide the pictures. I should add for your Lordships' information that now the Department of the Environment has given up this picture collection buying and the ownership of the pictures, and the matter has been transferred to the arts and libraries section of the Government.
One of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was in fact answered in my opening speech. The Government are insistent on reimbursement, as I think the noble Lord probably understands, but I do not have time to go into this problem. If I were to we should be here a very long time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked about Laxton being offered for sale. As I expect the noble Baroness knows, this matter is in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and subject to arrangements which would ensure the preservation of the ancient field system, it is to be offered for sale.
The noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, made strong points about the countryside's needs and interests. Nature conservation has been included in the Bill, and the trustees will have powers to do what the
112
noble Viscount wants them to do; and this will be done. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether bodies which advise Governments—such as the Scottish Civic Trust—can receive aid. The answer is, yes, if they are purchasing objects or land as defined in Clause 3.
My Lords, I hope that in winding up this debate quickly I have managed to answer to your Lordships' satisfaction at least some of the queries and questions raised. I give your Lordships my assurance that we will study most carefully the written record of this debate, so that we can answer fully the detailed questions which, quite properly, your Lordships have raised and drawn to our attention, and which we shall go into further at Committee stage.
I think it is fair to say that your Lordships have given a most warm and generous welcome to this Bill, and surely this is only right, for it has been heralded by everyone concerned with preserving our national heritage as the most significant step forward since the war, and such all-party support is perhaps rare enough nowadays. The sooner the Bill is enacted, the sooner the National Heritage Memorial Fund can begin to make its contribution towards the preservation of our heritage. I would therefore suggest, my Lords, that it behoves us all to be as speedy in our handling of this Bill as a thorough consideration of its provisions permits.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH AEROSPACE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES (CO-OWNERSHIP) BILL [H.L.]
7.52 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I say two things before coming to the substance of this Bill? The first is to apologise to your Lordships that it comes on so late. I am satisfied that it was due to a genuine misunderstanding, and I can only say

113
that when the noble Lord the Chief Whip found that there had been a misunderstanding he behaved with unexceptionable generosity. The second thing I wanted to say as a preliminary matter is that, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill of this sort, your Lordships would, I am sure, wish me to pay a tribute to the late Lady Summerskill, who did so much work in this field of the law and social policy.
My Lords, the background of this Bill is that the present law is unjust to married women. That was the unequivocal conclusion of the Law Commission, and was, I think, the universal consensus when your Lordships debated this matter on 18th July last. In view of that, I do not propose to go over again the ground that was then covered. I would merely add that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who spoke then from the Front Opposition Bench but made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity—and, of course, he has great knowledge of these matters—said that the law was not only unjust but highly technical and uncertain in its application (that is, the present law). It is for that reason that one of the first tasks of the Law Commission in 1965 was to undertake an examination of this branch of the law. The Law Commission was at that time under the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, and your Lordships have the advantage on this occasion of his presence and, as we all hope, his contribution.
The Law Commission, having taken up the scrutiny of our system, then went into all the other systems whereby, under matrimonial law, married women's property is governed, and they had very wide consultations with the Law Society, with the Bar Council and with a body whose name is actually "The Institute of Conveyancers", although they are always known in the law as "the forty thieves". It was only after those wide consultations that the commission put out a working paper, on which they invited further comment. So far as this Bill is concerned, the working paper said:
"The present rule determining the interests of a husband and wife in the matrimonial home are in need of reform by the introduction of a principle of co-ownership under which, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, a matrimonial home would be shared equally between husband and wife".
My Lords, it is that principle which has
114
survived all the discussions and which is vindicated in this Bill.
In their Third Report on Matrimonial Property, the Law Commission, then under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Justice Cooke, produced three draft Bills with detailed arguments governing their provisions. One was the present Bill, covering the co-ownership of the matrimonial home; one was on rights of occupation of the matrimonial home; and one governed household goods. When the matter was debated last July, so far as the household goods draft Bill was concerned some misgivings were expressed. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack expressed some misgivings, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, though not the same misgivings in each case. So at the moment that Bill does not concern your Lordships. As to the occupancy Bill, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack indicated that the Government would legislate in respect of that Bill, and that he hoped it could be done this Session. Although it does not immediately arise out of the Bill before your Lordships, I know your Lordships would like to hear what prospects there are of that in view of what I know to be a congestion of business.
The co-ownership draft Bill received general approbation, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is fair to say, expressed some concern about its complexity—and I shall return to that point in a moment. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was quite categorical—and I understood it well—that the Government could not find time for the legislation of a Bill of this length and complexity, although he said it was open to any Private Member of either House to introduce a Bill—as he put it, "to put the Government on the spot". My Lords, it is certainly no part of my purpose to put the Government on the spot; but very wide expectations have been aroused by the proposal and if no action were taken it seems to me that it would be regarded as an act of parliamentary perfidy. Certainly, it would be deplorable if we said that we recognised an injustice, that we recognised here something that needs a remedy, but that we would go right back to 1965 and try to devise a new scheme. This scheme has been before the public now for 15 years. It

115
has been discussed, it has been canvassed and it has survived.
May I say just one word on the question of complexity. The legislation here is in a highly technical field of the law. It is necessarily technical because so often many different people have concurrent interest in land, which, of course, includes buildings. There is the freeholder, on one hand, and the leaseholder, on the other; there is the legal owner and the equitable owner; there is the mortgagee, there is the partner and a great many others; so that it really is impossible to legislate very simply and untechnically. Before the 1920s, it was generally recognised that our property law was extremely difficult, highly technical and extremely expensive to operate. In the 1920s, six important consolidating statutes were finally enacted and, in 1972, yet another in the Land Charges Act.
I have added up the number of sections in those measures and there are 642 sections and 23 schedules, some of them very lengthy and very difficult to understand. In view of that, your Lordships may well think that the draftsmen—they were two of the most distinguished draftsmen of my time in the law—have done a brilliant job in dealing with this matter in 34 clauses and three schedules, of which one is an index. My noble friend Lord Renton was chairman of the Committee on Preparation of Legislation and he wrote to me paying his tribute to the drafting of this measure.
My Lords, having said that, your Lordships will, I think, not wish me at this hour to deal with technicalities or try to anticipate Committee points. It has been generally agreed that the matrimonial home is a special case. That was the view of the Law Commission. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, made the point cogently last July and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, went on to say that it was an anomaly that the law treats the matrimonial home like any other piece of property. It deserves special treatment because it is, in general, the principal, if not the sole, asset of the family. It is the special sphere of activity of the wife. And, in every system of law that I know—certainly, every Commonwealth system—the matrimonial home is treated as a special case.
116
As to the principles behind the Bill, I am going to give examples and take the case as if the wife were the acquiring spouse and the husband the owner spouse; but I do that merely for convenience because the law, with humanity, says that "man" embraces "woman". The first principle is that the parties are free to make their own arrangements. It is only in default of their own arrangements that the principle of co-ownership arises. That principle of co-ownership, your Lordships may well think, is a proper reflection of the concept of partnership in marriage. There used to be a fine saying of the old Court of Chancery that equality is equity—and that is what is vindicated in the principle of co-ownership.
It has received wide professional assent. The Law Commission commissioned a social survey which is significant. The question which was asked by, I think, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys was:
"Some people say that the home should legally be jointly owned by the husband and wife, irrespective of who paid for it. Do you agree or disagree with that?"
Of those who took part in the survey, 91 per cent of the husbands and 94 per cent of the wives, agreed. In fact there was a majority, although small only, who actually practised the principal of co-ownership of their matrimonial home. In view of that, I venture to suggest that the Law Commission's proposals have very wide popular support, as well.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the way the Bill achieves the co-ownership except merely to say this in view of the questions that I have been asked about it: that it applies to council lettings, too. But in view of some apprehensions that have been expressed, I want to indicate the principal exceptions from the co-ownership. First of all, either spouse may unilaterally exclude the co-ownership under Clause 8. The normal case, I suppose, where that would be done is where there is some great historic mansion which has come down in a family who have over generations lavished care and love upon it. And in that case, not only may either spouse unilaterally exclude it, but they can do so up to one year after the Royal Assent has been given to this measure. That is Clause 32—what the

117
Law Commission calls one year's breathing space.
The second main exception is that a donor may exclude co-ownership. If, for example, a father gives a matrimonial home to one of the spouses, he may give it exclusively to one, to the exclusion of the other. The third important exclusion arises under Clauses 11 and 12. The husband and wife jointly may make a declaration, express or implied, in favour of some other kind of ownership than the statutory joint ownership under the Bill.
The last major one that perhaps I should mention arises under Clause 13, where the Bill excludes co-ownership, where it is necessary to avoid severence. The normal case, the most usual case I suppose, would be a farmhouse. A farmhouse would normally be a necessary appurtenance to the farming land round it, and it would be deleterious to make the farmhouse then the subject of a joint statutory tenancy of husband and wife. But in the rare cases where the farmhouse is severable, and it would be a question of fact, then it falls within the Bill.
That is all I wanted to say on Part I, Chapter II. Part I, Chapter III, deals with the incidents of co-ownership, of which the first and very important one is the right of control. The matrimonial home cannot be sold, mortgaged or otherwise disposed of without the consent of the wife or husband, whoever is the acquiring spouse. The machinery devised is under Clause 20. The wife can make herself a trustee where it is appropriate, so that she would have to join in any such dealing with the property; or, alternatively, by Clause 23 she can register her interest so that anybody dealing with the matrimonial home will know that she is interested in it.
The second and very important right that is given under this part of the Bill is to give the wife a right in the replacement home. If the matrimonial home is sold, the wife or maybe the husband, can insist on the purchase money, or a proper part of it, being dedicated to the replacement home. Those are the main provisions.
I venture respectfully to ask: What is the Government's attitude? I know from what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said last time that there is no hope of Government time this session,
118
and it may well be that in those circumstances he does not want to dissipate the time and energies of civil servants and draftsmen to help this Bill through; but I venture to ask whether he should make that plain?
I invite the support of all your Lordships who view the family as a fundamental institution of society; all your Lordships who treat marriage as a true partnership of equals performing different functions; all your Lordships who regard private property as a valuable institution in providing an area where freedom of choice can be exercised and indeed in advancing the status of the person enjoying it; and, finally, all of your Lordships who are truly interested in the promotion of justice, as I know is the common feeling throughout your Lordships' House. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will represent a significant advance in family law. I believe that it is a particularly happy and appropriate fact that this reform would come under the heading of family law—and I emphasise the word "family". The term "family law" is not always altogether apt when one considers some matters that it covers, though I would not want to seek to change it. So often it is necessarily more concerned with the break up of the family than with its promotion, even though the aim there is partly too to protect the family from, for instance, the effects of divorce.
These proposals I believe not only amount to an advance in the rights of marital partners and in marital justice, they also actually enhance and help to cement the state of matrimony, marriage itself, and, through that, help to promote and safeguard the family and family life—one of the fundamental bastions of civilised society.
Before going on to the provisions of the Bill itself, I feel that it is not inappropriate on an occasion like this to mention in passing the process for law reform that we have established and have been developing over these past 10 or 15 years, and to

119
which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has alluded in his speech. I do not think that it does any harm once in a while to draw to the attention of people generally the way that the system is working. This very Bill—itself a product of the process—demonstrates how splendidly the system is working for, through the Law Commission, under the Law Commission's Act introduced under the Lord Chancellorship of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner (whom, I am pleased to see, is also taking part in the debate tonight) we have a continuing, systematic and thorough review of aspects of the law leading to concrete proposals for law reform.
Quite apart from the great value of the Commission itself—and, if I may say so, a well-deserved tribute has been paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his connections with it—one of the great blessings of the law reform system and of the part which your Lordships' House plays in it is the continuity that is provided in this sphere by successive Lord Chancellors. It is of great benefit—but especially on matters of this kind—that this continuity is carried on under successive governments of whatever party. In this particular case, we have a Bill which was contained in a report of the Law Commission, as your Lordships have heard, presented to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I have no doubt that had that Government remained in office, he would certainly have wished to see this Bill make progress. The noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor has already indicated his general personal support for the report when it was debated on 18th July last year.
In warmly congratulating the Law Commission members for all their immence hard work, both on the massive report itself and on the draft of this Bill contained in it, I should also like to offer very warm thanks indeed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the service that he has performed both in introducing the debate on the report last year, and in introducing this Bill, if I may say so with respect, and for doing so with such clarity and precision. He speaks with great experience and expertise on these matters, having spent some nine
120
years as president of what was to become the Family Division of the High Court.
The basic proposal in the Bill, that the matrimonial home should be jointly and equally owned by husband and wife, is a very simple one. It would not only amount to a social advance and an advance in family law, for the reason I have already suggested; it would also amount to simple justice for the married couple. As the Law Commission's Report itself notes,
"… the home is the residence of a family as well as being, in many cases, its major capital asset. Husband and wife each contribute to the home in their different ways—the wife's contributions are no less real because they may not be financial—and the home is essential to the well-being of the family as a whole. In our view these factors make the matrimonial home a unique item of property, and one to which a unique law of co-ownership should apply".
This certainly seems to accord with modern views and tendencies, and increasingly the tendency has been for married couples to put the matrimonial home into their joint names.
We also have the guidance given by the survey, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; and indeed the report itself noted that:
"…a majority of home-owning couples provide voluntarily for the co-ownership of their homes".
The principles in this Bill are also in line with the way in which our divorce laws have been moving over recent years, especially the way in which the courts recognise the contributions made by both spouses to the matrimonial home. No doubt this Bill will be seen by many, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has mentioned, as advancing particularly the rights of the wife. It certainly does do that, for in most cases in which the home is in one name only that one will be the husband and the wife will be the non-owner. But I believe that it brings justice to both partners and gives legal effect to the tendency which is already taking place.
Although the Bill's main aim is a simple one, the detailed proposals, as the Law Commission's report itself notes, and indeed as the noble and learned Lord in moving the Second Reading has mentioned, are complex, even though I would with respect agree with him that it is brilliantly drafted. I know that my noble friend Lord Mishcon has some strong reservations about the Bill. He certainly

121
has wide experience as a practitioner in this sphere of our law, and expressed some of these reservations in the debate on the report. Another of my noble friends, Lord McGregor of Durris, also speaks with great authority on these matters, and I am pleased that he, too, together with other noble Lords with very relevant experience, will be taking part.
I should now like to turn to some of the more detailed provisions of the Bill. It sets out, as your Lordships have heard, circumstances in which statutory co-ownership would not apply, and the report itself refers to what it calls "major exceptions and minor ones". I wholly agree, with respect, that it is absolutely right that the spouses should be free to exclude statutory co-ownership if they wish, provided it is clear what is the other form of ownership that they want. I also agree that someone who gives, by will or otherwise, a home to someone should be free to exclude co-ownership.
I agree, too, though perhaps a little less readily, that a spouse who owns a home at the time of the marriage should be able to exclude it from co-ownership, provided that he or she makes a declaration to that effect before the marriage takes place. But I am not so sure about some of the supplementary provisions associated with that provision, and it might be better to mention them now than suddenly to spring a surprise in Committee, because it is a somewhat basic point.
The report recommended and the Bill provides that the declaration by the spouse excluding co-ownership has to be made and attested by a witness before a marriage so as to be effective; otherwise co-ownership will apply. There is no requirement that once marriage takes place the other spouse shall be told about the declaration. Indeed, the Law Commission itself rejected that idea and explained its reasons for doing so. However, the report notes on page 33 that one member of the Commission, Mr. Norman Marsh, considered
"… that it would be potentially harmful to good matrimonial relations to allow one spouse by his own secret reservation to spring a surprise, perhaps after years of marriage, on the other spouse as to the ownership of the matrimonial home. He thinks therefore that a declaration should not have effect unless it has been communicated to the other spouse before marriage (which he emphasises does not necessarily mean that the other spouse consents). For similar
122
reasons, he would require a declaration made by a spouse during a transitional period … to be brought to the notice of the other spouse before the end of that period in order to be effective to prevent property from passing into statutory co-ownership".
I am bound to say that I find Mr. Marsh's views attractive. Not to tell the other spouse whether or not the matrimonial home is jointly owned in those circumstances would seem to be storing up powerful potential sources of friction and discord between them, which it would be far better to avoid. I can quite see that there are arguments on both sides, and indeed these have been referred to in the Law Commission's report. I can also see that it might not be altogether easy to specify, and indeed prove, the circumstances in which the non-owning spouse could be told about the exclusion. For instance, it would certainly be a trifle unseemly to insert a new passage into the marriage service and to say,
"With all my worldly goods I thee endow, except that I have signed a declaration excluding thee from ownership of our most valued possession—the matrimonial home",
though it should surely be possible to provide for some form of acknowledgment, perhaps signed by both spouses, and lodged somewhere appropriate. Indeed, the full Commission has shown itself elsewhere in its report to be sensitive to the need to preserve and promote marital harmony. In fact, that is really the prime purpose of these proposals as a whole.
There are other implications arising from this failure to provide a non-owning spouse with the right to know the facts about the matrimonial home ownership. For instance, in the case where a donor has given a home and excluded co-ownership, the non-owning spouse has no means of knowing necessarily as of right whether or not he or she owns it jointly. It is true that the report points out that a husband or wife may apply to court under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to seek to resolve a problem. But surely it is better, wherever possible, to avoid the need to go to court. It is also important to ensure as much certainty as possible, which is something else that the Commission plainly seeks. Surely Mr. Marsh's suggestion would help to achieve both aims—certainty and, where possible, avoiding going to court—and, indeed, promote harmony between the couples.

123
I do not want to exaggerate this problem too much. Most couples will either accept statutory co-ownership or will agree on an alternative, and in many cases in which co-ownership has been excluded under one of the exceptions in the Bill, the non-owning spouse will have been told about the exclusion by the owning spouse. But there are likely to be some who do not know either the ownership position or what their rights are, and who might face difficulties. So I should like to feel that perhaps at a later stage in the passage of this Bill, if it receives a Second Reading, we could either avoid the possibility of these difficulties by the simple provision suggested, so that she is told when exclusion applies, or be assured that there is no cause for concern here.
There are other comparatively minor worries about some of the Bill's detailed provisions, but no doubt those can best be raised in Committee if the House approves the Bill tonight. Certainly, I would not wish it to be thought that, because one may have criticisms on particular points of detail, one regards these as detracting in any way from the value of the main aims of the Bill. Anyway, many of the detailed provisions themselves contain valuable reforms, too, such as the admirable innovation giving spouses rights when the matrimonial home is replaced by a new one. As the report itself says at paragraph 1.255:
"…each spouse ought in our view to have a right to ensure that the other spouse's share of the proceeds of sale of a former home are used in the acquisition of a replacement home"—
an excellent reform indeed. I agree, too, that it is right to allow, as the Bill provides, for a transitional period of one year before it is brought into effect so that its provisions can become known and so that married couples may decide whether or not they want statutory co-ownership to apply to their matrimonial home.
There is only one other matter which that point leads on to which I should like very briefly to mention now, and that is the question of publicity during the transitional period. The Law Commission's report itself points to the need for this in paragraph 1.215, where it says of the Bill's provisions:
"…we hope publicity will ensure that not only its existence but also its import is widely known".
124
I think it is important to do that. I am wondering what thought has been given to the form which this very necessary publicity might take. It would be helpful—not necessarily, of course, today, but perhaps later in the passage of the Bill—if we could be given some indication about that. In my submission, this Bill marks a major step in the modernisation of our matrimonial law, and I very much hope that your Lordships will tonight give it a Second Reading.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, first, I should like to associate myself most sincerely with the tribute which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, paid to the late Lady Summerskill. Any of us who have been associated in any way with work in connection with change in the position of women know how active she was in all spheres, how much all of us owe to the work that she did and how she was particularly interested in the subject of the Bill which tonight is before your Lordships' House. It is very sad indeed that she cannot be here to see this Bill go though your Lordships' House.
I intend to speak extremely briefly, partly because of the lateness of the hour but even more because the legal complexities of this Bill are quite beyond me to deal with in any competent fashion. I should like, however, to give from these Benches the strongest possible support to the Bill that the noble and learned Lord has introduced. It is belated recognition of the true status of the wife in marriage.
It is a curious quirk that we have already ensured the rights to the divorced woman but that we have delayed until now giving appropriate rights to the wife in the successful, happy and continuing marriage. Until now there has been a hangover from the ancient view that the wife is, to all intents and purposes, a dependant rather than a partner in the marriage. It is the position of partnership which this Bill recognises and enshrines in legislation that will be extremely acceptable and very much welcomed by women and, I believe, by a great many men up and down the country. As has been said, it does little more than justice to the wife by giving common ownership in the home.

125
The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that it recognises the fact that a wife makes a contribution to the home by her work in the home. But the fact of the matter is, particularly with the younger generation of wives, that very often they make a substantial economic and financial contribution to the home as well as the contribution which they make by the care and the maintenance of their home. It is very common indeed for young women today, both before and in the early years of marriage, to work extremely hard and earn a substantial amount of money in order that they can help with the paying off of the mortgage and in order that they can provide the equipment which makes it a real and satisfactory home, not just a barely adequate place in which to live.
So this Bill recognises not only the traditional contribution which the wife makes to the home but the modern contribution which is also a financial and a straight economic contribution. In a number of cases it may well be only because of the work of the wife and her continuing to work in the early years of marriage that it is possible for a couple to acquire a mortgage and have a home that they themselves own.
I recognise, as has been said, that it is now common for both parties to be named in the ownership of the home and that this has become a much more common practice than it was in the past. However, there are still a number of cases where this does not happen, and when the Bill is passed it will make it law that it shall happen.
I support the criticism which has been made about the possible secret exclusion. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thought to be embodied in the Bill. If we are thinking in terms of partnership and recognising that the wife makes a real contribution, economic and otherwise, to the home it is extraordinary that it should be said in another clause that it will be possible for the husband or, indeed, the wife secretly to sign away the right of the other without the other having any right to know that this has happened. This is implied by saying that it is done secretly. It seems to me extraordinary that it should have crept into the Bill, and if it is proposed when the Bill reaches Committee stage that it should be removed,
126
that removal will certainly have support from these Benches.
With those very brief words, I should like to give our strongest support to this Bill.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord for introducing this Bill. I think that the Sectional committee of the Married Women's Association will be very pleased when they hear the results of tonight's debate. From these Benches I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. She was a very gallant fighter for all that she espoused and her death will be much regretted. Fortunately, she had seen the preliminary debate in this House, and I gather from her daughter that she had taken an interest in many things right up to the last moment.
I wish the noble and learned Lord success with his Bill. He may remember that when I was in the House of Commons I introduced an Attachment of Earnings Bill. He was a Minister at the time and he was most helpful. But something happened then which I gather cannot happen in this House. Six Members of Parliament—three Conservatives and three Labour—sat outside the committee room so that I should not get my quorum. So the Bill fell. I wish his Bill better success than that, for he was absolutely marvellous at the time.
I understand that in 1976 New Zealand introduced a Bill on the same lines. It provided not only for joint ownership of the matrimonial home but also enjoined joint ownership of its contents; so we have something to go on. I understand that it is working very well, which leads me to believe that we may have success in this House. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord about the question of council houses because, so far as I know, very few councils put the joint names on their rent cards. Plymouth does. I have checked with quite a number of councils. The noble and learned Lord said that he would look into the matter. If the Bill is passed, perhaps the Home Office might consider sending a circular to local authorities pressing them to undertake this.

127
I should like to put one or two points. If a husband goes bankrupt, can the woman retain her goods and chattels in the house, as she can if he goes bankrupt now? It is going to be very difficult for her if she cannot do so. And what about hire purchase agreements? If her partner fails, does she lose her goods that she has been trying to buy?
The last point I should like to mention is the question of wills. If everything is joint, I suppose the husband and wife will have to discuss what they are going to put in their wills, because it would be rather awkward if one of them left a certain amount of things to one relation and the other left them to another relation, which I presume might happen if there was joint ownership of the contents.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but I rather think I am right in saying that the co-ownership visualised by the Bill is a joint tenancy and not a tenancy in common, with the result that there will not be a right of testation in either party but that the survivor will take all.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for that information, and I hope it works out satisfactorily for the survivor. With those few words, I should like to wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, success with his Bill.
8.41 p.m.
Lord SCARMAN: My Lords, I also should like to add my words of congratulation to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for introducing this Bill. In a sense it is a great occasion of law reform tonight. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, introducing this Bill with his unrivalled knowledge and experience of family law, and doing it in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the Lord Chancellor who set up the Law Commission, upon the basis of whose report we are able to discuss tonight this extremely important last stage in the commission's programme
128
of law reform in the sphere of family law.
My Lords, I do not wish—indeed there is no need—to detain you long tonight since I sense the feeling of the House moving strongly in favour of this Bill. Tonight of course is not the appropriate moment to discuss the technicalities of the Bill but let me say first of all one or two things about the complexities of the Bill.
To a layman, reading this Bill is a difficult and unattractive task but clearly this House is not going to allow itself to be distracted by the necessary complexities of the Bill from an understanding of and support for the very simple principle which it embodies. That simple principle is this, that in married life the husband and wife should, unless they choose to organise their affairs in a different way, both of them own the matrimonial home. Of course the Bill operates as much in favour of a husband as it does of a wife, but let us not be deluded by that necessary feature of the Bill into thinking that this Bill is necessary for the protection of husbands. It certainly is not. This Bill is necessary as the law's safety net for the most vulnerable woman in our society, the devoted married woman while the marriage relationship is a living relationship and she has her family duties hard upon her. She is exceedingly vulnerable.
If of course, as so many women are, she is fortunate in her husband and her children there is no risk. There is of course no need for her protection by the law but if, like the girl on the flying trapeze, she takes a leap towards her partner and fails to get the appropriate support and grip as she flies through the air, then as she falls to the hard ground she needs the safety net of co-ownership for her support. At the moment our law does not provide that at all. She falls on the hard ground of legal ownership, separate property and nothing for her unless she has been well enough advised at the beginning of her matrimonial life to ensure that she agrees with her husband or fiancé joint ownership of the matrimonial home. So what this Bill is doing is providing a legal background of joint ownership of the matrimonial home if they have not agreed something else. This is a major reform which will be immensely important for the most vulnerable of all women in our society. It changes the background of

129
the law so that if things go wrong, if there is no agreement to the contrary, she can fall back on a law which recognises her as much as him as the owner of the home.
I have heard two general criticisms of the Bill and I will endeavour to deal with them extremely shortly, The first is its complexity. The complexities are due, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, to having to fit this safety net of the law into the existing fabric of the law and at the same time it is no good, as a matter of justice, protecting wife or husband if at the same time we do not ensure that purchasers, mortgagees, creditors and others also retain the protection of the law in dealing with the spouses. This Bill, which as my noble and learned friend has said is the work of two of the most distinguished Parliamentary draftsmen who have graced their very difficult profession, has made use of an age-old legal concept and that is the technical brilliance of the Bill. It has fastened on the concept of a trust and, put very generally, the two spouses become the legal owners as trustees of the matrimonial home and they are also in equity the beneficial joint owners. If they are the trustees then both of them, husband and wife, have their names on the legal title to the home; everyone who deals with them, whether he be a purchaser or someone about to lend money on the house, will have notice under the machinery of the law that they are there.
But suppose that does not happen and that although co-ownership has occurred by operation of the law the wife's name has not come on to the property, then this Bill cunningly produces the necessary result. She can get a land charge registered if it is unregistered land and that is notice to the world of her interest. If it is registered land she can enter a restriction in the registry and that is notice to the world.
I mention those two details only just to give your Lordships an illustration of the skill with which this Bill has been fitted into the law of trusts, the common law of legal ownership, the equitable law or the equitable rights of beneficial ownership. All this has been done so that not only the wife is protected but also the husband and also all those who deal with them. No wonder the Bill is complex. But complexity is a price worth
130
paying if the end result is justice, and that is what I think is the end result of this Bill. Therefore, I say to the House be not afeared of its complexities. They are necessary because you are dealing with a necessarily complex part of the law, and we are fitting in simple justice for man and wife into what has been a complicated part of the law for centuries, and is bound always to remain as such.
The other main criticism I have heard of the Bill is that it is unnecessary. Of course, it is unnecessary if men and women will always take legal advice when they are engaged in marriage, go to a solicitor and get joint ownership worked out and an agreement regulating their family property. But the importance of this Bill, as I have already indicated, is that it takes care of the feckless, the inadequate, the uneducated, the ignorant, the helpless woman; one can apply all those adjectives to art absolutely darling person of great virtue who needs help and protection, if you like, against her own inexperience in the wiles of the world. It is, therefore, not unnecessary, for the reason which I have developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned Mr. Norman Marsh's reservation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also talked of the secret exclusion. That is not an easy problem. I do not want to go into a committee point at this stage, but let me indicate why the majority of the Law Commission after a considerable amount of hesitation felt they could not go along with Norman Marsh. If I may just digress for a moment, I know your Lordships will allow me to say this: Norman Marsh is one of the founding fathers of the Law Commission. He is the Law Commissioner, recently retired, with the greatest period of service, having been appointed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in 1965, and having remained a Law Commissioner until only last year, when he retired. His views are indeed entitled to immense respect—a fine creative and humane lawyer.
The reason why his views on this point were not accepted—and I am by no means saying he was wrong, because he indicated the other point of view—was this, that a man or a woman may wish for very good family reasons—the historic mansion is one, but there are others—to make sure at an early stage, before he or she has any

131
idea of marriage, that the house in which he or she will probably live when he or she gets married is to be outside statutory co-ownership. Therefore the declaration is made as a declaration to the world. It might be possible to register it in some way; that would require machinery and money. But it has to be an attested declaration and does not have to be a declaration with a specific fiancée in mind. It can be made at a time when marriage has not even loomed over the horizon but it is a contingency which the family wish to make provision for. That is the reason, and of course it is an attested declaration, and it is a declaration in writing. The argument can go one way or the other. But I thought your Lordships should know that there are substantial reasons why the majority of the Law Commission did not agree with their very respected colleague Mr. Norman Marsh in this respect.
Finally, I think your Lordships should know that this Bill of course derives from the Third Report of the Law Commission on family property. That is a very massive, very well written and interesting document indeed, presented to Parliament in 1978, the final instalment of the Law Commision's work in this field for the time being. It contained recommendations for three Bills, the one under discussion in your Lordships' House at this moment, the Matrimonial Home (Occupation Rights) Bill, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon briefly referred, and the Household Goods Bill, all of them measures intended to protect and to afford justice to the married woman while she is married. Before this report was submitted, Parliament had substantially enacted all the various measures put forward by the Law Commission to protect men and women, their property, and indeed their very lives in the event of a matrimonial breakdown. Justice by and large has already been done to the woman whose marriage had collapsed, but justice had not been done to the married woman. I respectfully agree with those who have said this evening that justice to the married woman is as important—socially it may be more important—as it is to the woman who has had to face the catastrophe of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
132
My Lords, a complicated Bill, yes; an unattractive Bill because of its complexity, no: it is cowardice to suggest that. A simple Bill in principle and purpose, yes. One that is intended to do justice to the most vulnerable and valuable section of the whole of our society, founded as it is on family life, most assuredly. My Lords, it is with pride that I come here this evening to support my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
8.59 p.m.
Baroness LOCKWOOD: My Lords, I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this Bill and also for initiating the debate on the subject last July. I should also like to thank him for the way he outlined the main provisions of the Bill tonight. Those of us who are laymen and laywomen in this field would, I think, find that very helpful, both in clarifying some of the points that we were doubtful about and also in confirming some of the interpretations that we may have put on the Bill.
I should also like to join with the noble Lord and the noble Baronesses who have paid tribute to the late Lady Summerskill for the early pioneering work that she did in this area. I think that perhaps we would not have had the report from the Law Commission had it not been for the work that she and some of the women of her generation did many years ago.
As I see it, there are two basic reasons why one should support the Bill. The first, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, is that the present situation is unjust and the Bill would therefore bring the law as regards married women into line with the situation as regards those women who have suffered divorce. In other words, at present where the marriage has broken down the rights of both partners are provided for, but where the marriage still subsists the rights, by and large, of the wife are not provided for. In that sense it is a just Bill.
Secondly, I think that we should support the Bill because it brings the law into line with the present social circumstances. Here I would digress from the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and also from some of the

133
remarks in the report of the Law Commission. I think that I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord talked about marriage as being a true partnership of equals performing different functions. More and more in present day society there is no longer this clear distinction between the functions of the husband and the wife.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has remarked, more women are making quite a substantial contribution to the economy of the household. They are making their contribution to the mortgage repayments of the house and they are beginning to share with their husbands the responsibility for the breadwinning function. Likewise, more husbands are beginning to share the responsibility for the family and for the care of the family. Therefore, we are moving into a situation where there is much more equality between the partners in marriage, both from the point of view of earning and from the point of view of homemaking.
While I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said—namely, that this is certainly not a Bill to provide rights for husbands—I think that we must recognise that these changes are taking place and that there will be circumstances where the wife will be the major breadwinner, and the wife will be the provider of the matrimonial home. It is important that the law in relation to the matrimonial home should recognise that change. Moreover, it would coincide with changes in other areas—in relation, for instance, to the status of the head of household. In many of our practices, indeed I think I am right in saying in relation to the Census, we are again moving away from the automatic assumption that it is the man, the husband, who is the head of household. It would fit in with the changes that are proposed in the Social Security Bill which is now being debated in the other place and which will no doubt shortly come before this House. That Bill will implement the recommendations of the EEC Directive on Equality in Social Security where again we are beginning to recognise the fact that the two partners are individuals, and not necessarily one dependent upon the other.
Thirdly, it would be in line with what I hope will be changes in the taxation area.
134
Indeed, I would hope that if the Bill goes through it would give a new impetus to the move to change Section 37 of the Corporation and Taxes Act. That section assumes, or deems to assume, that the taxable income of a wife belongs to the husband. It would be nonsense if we were to pass a Bill which gives the partners equal rights in the matrimonial home and to keep on our statute book at the same time a section of an Act which gives the husband the right to control the finances of his wife. Therefore, for all those reasons, I would very much support the Bill.
Some of the advantages of the Bill, indeed many of them, have been outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. However, I should like to draw attention to one other aspect of this Bill and to one advantage that it would bring to women in particular. There is a practice which is still very prevalent when one is seeking either a mortgage or credit, to ask for security and, of course, to take either the tenancy of a house or the ownership of a house as security for providing credit. If the house is in the name of the husband alone, then that provision of credit is not available to women.
There was a rather interesting article in the Guardian a few days ago under the title, "His and what's hers". It referred to a marriage which had lasted for 20 years where the wife wanted to raise a loan. When she was asked by the bank manager if she could produce evidence to the effect that she was a half owner of the matrimonial home, she had to admit that she was not. The solicitor, in advising the wife, suggested that she would only be able to get her half share of the matrimonial home if the marriage broke up, and, as there was no intention of the marriage breaking up, other means had to be sought. The suggestion of the solicitor then was that the husband should take out a mortgage on the home—it was not mortgaged—in the name of his wife, so that the wife would get the money, and should arrange for her to make the repayments. All that complicated procedure simply because it was not accepted that a house that was shared by the husband and wife could provide security for the wife, due to the fact that the house was not in her name. Many such circumstances as that would be eradicated if the home was

135
automatically in the name of both partners to the marriage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, made reference to tenancies. I am very glad to have it confirmed that tenancies are included in the provisions of the Bill, because again the whole situation of tenancies in the name of the husband alone creates problems for women in the ways I have described. It is rather ironical that the subject of the sale of council houses, which was very controversial in another place, has highlighted this very problem.
I understand that there have been cases where a wife, having found herself resident in the council house, her husband having just died, sought to purchase the house under the provisions for the purchase of council houses, only to be told that, because she was not a joint tenant, the years during which she had lived in the house with her husband did not count towards the favourable conditions that were available for the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. I am glad to say that the Department of the Environment has now issued a circular to local authorities advising them to take into consideration the occupancy of the house by both spouses, irrespective of whether or not they were joint tenants. Again, that kind of difficulty—and one cannot anticipate the kind of difficulties that will occur in the future—would not occur if the provisions in the Bill were enshrined in our laws.
The further point which is a great advantage and which would be very beneficial, largely to the wife, is in relation to financial transactions based on the house. Many a family has found itself in difficulty when a husband has either raised a loan on the house or has taken steps to sell the house without the other partner knowing. Again, that situation would be covered by the Bill. Therefore, there is a great advantage in having a Bill of this kind on our statute book.
There are some areas of reservation. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has raised one of the problems in relation to the secrecy which could occur before marriage, when one partner decides to seek an exclusion from the provisions of the Bill without informing the other
136
partner. These are difficulties which should be looked at very carefully when we come to the Committee stage. Nevertheless, I do not think that they would invalidate the basic principles of the Bill.
When the subject was debated in July last year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor raised a reservation in relation to taxation problems. I believe I am right when I say that he suggested that perhaps the implications in relation to taxation had not been looked at as carefully as they might have been. I have two reservations as regards taxation. I think that it is possible that there could be problems in relation to capital transfer tax, which again could be looked at carefully in Committee, where any problems could be resolved.
I also think that there could be problems in relation to privacy within the taxation system. At the present time our taxation system provides for privacy for the husband, but it does not provide for privacy for the wife. It seems to me that if we move into the area of joint ownership, then the whole question of privacy in taxation matters could be raised. But again I would suggest that if the same principles are applied to both spouses there should be no ill-effect. Therefore, I would join with noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have given their support to this Bill and have remarked that it really would prove to be a tremendous advance in relation to matrimonial affairs and matrimonial property affairs.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with clarity and conviction, for which we are deeply grateful. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have dealt with the general legal points of this Bill. Therefore, it would be presumptuous of me to deal with points of law. I shall therefore deal with two points of a social and practical nature concerning the daily lives of some people.
The first point has been covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and it concerns the changing role of women in our society coupled with the unchanging needs of children. In time past, the woman in a marriage was, I would

137
suggest, the Duchess of Plaza Toro. She led from behind and in the background, but she had no rights. In this day and age the relationship in marriage is so much more a relationship of equal open partnership, equal work, equal earnings, and shared responsibilities where home and children are concerned.
This Bill, so carefully reasoned by the Law Commission in their report, and so well drafted, brings the law concerning the matrimonial homes into line with the spirit of modern life; and so it is surely right that there should be co-ownership of the matrimonial home. However, despite the new approach of married couples, there are nevertheless many couples still in this country who do not subscribe to the growing attitude of partnership in marriage, They do not subscribe to the dictum:
"All my goods I share with thee".
And it must be remembered that many of those buying their council houses, as has been remarked by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, are used to having the tenancy put in the name of the husband, and therefore when it comes to buying the council house it seems the natural and normal thing to leave the purchase in the name of the husband.
In my work as a social worker I have had difficult instances of a woman ill-treated by her husband, or her husband's ill-treatment of the child or children and she feeling the need to leave the matrimonial home for the sake of the safety of herself and the children. She can, of course, seek an injunction to stay in the home and her husband to move out, but because she is unused to having co-partnership and co-ownership of the matrimonial home she does not know this; and if she knew it she might seek the injunction earlier. If she did, this would save the women and children seeking shelter at such hostels as are run by the splendid Erin Pizzey, who appeared before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when she was occupying a house not her own because of the plight of women who felt that they must leave their homes because there was not in their view co-partnership and co-ownership of the matrimonial home. Many other reasons have been enumerated by other noble Lords, and I shall not detain the House, except to say that I support this Bill.
9.19 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, because of the hour I rise but briefly to support the Second Reading of this Bill and to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not only for having introduced its contents to us but for reminding us of its history. It is manifest, I think, that in general the Bill has the support of the House, and I have no personal criticisms to raise. I am a little concerned about the future. My one regret tonight is that the late Lady Summerskill, who all her life was such a splendid fighter against the many hardships from which women have suffered, did not live quite long enough to see the Second Reading of the Bill.
I remember a day when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning,—I must not say "invented"—promulgated the doctrine of the deserted wife's equity in the matrimonial home. I felt difficulty in perceiving on what law it was based and I felt that if, sooner or later, it reached your Lordships' House, the decision would probably be overruled. But when that did happen, the noble and learned Lords of Appeal made it clear that they considered there should be some such provision and expressed a solemn hope that the then Government would deal with the matter as one of some urgency.
It was then that Lady Summerskill at once introduced a Matrimonial Homes Bill. It was, I am afraid, drafted in a way which made it impossible really to put it forward at all, but in view of what had been said by your Lordships' House I asked the Law Commission to rally round and help Lady Summerskill to redraft the Bill and get it right, and we had no real difficulty with it in this House. However, when it went to the other place there was one honourable Member, whose anti-feminist views are well-known, who said, "Object". That happened for several weeks and I had to say to Lady Summerskill, "I am very sorry, but I am afraid we have had it, at least for this Session, and there is nothing I can do". That went on for 10 weeks. On the eleventh weeks there was silence—the honourable Member had the 'flu—and so the Bill went through.
The moral of that story, if I may so suggest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is that we must

139
never despair. At the same time, I join with him in saying that we should be grateful if it were possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to intimate in his reply what he thinks the prospects of the Bill may be—whether we may face a Government Whip saying, "Object". It is, as we all know, a very difficult Session. There are a number of outstanding reports of the Law Commission, and we all realise that for any Lord Chancellor this Session has obviously been an extremely difficult one; but if he could give us cause for any real hope we should be grateful. Even if not, if the Bill reaches Third Reading in this House this Session, it could be reintroduced at the earliest possible moment in the next Session, when it would have a very easy passage. Subject to those observations, I strongly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
9.23 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I know I shall have a certain amount of difficulty in containing my enthusiasm for the Bill but I can only promise your Lordships that I shall do my very best. My enthusiasm springs from two sources. One is what I will call aesthetic, and the other is the socio-legal effects that I see may well result from the Bill should it become law.
The aesthetic reason is simply that the Bill is superbly drafted. It has the rare qualities in a modern Bill of clarity, precision and brevity. When one bears in mind that the Bill concerns a branch of the law of hideous complexity, it becomes clear that quite exceptional skill, scholarship and erudition has been brought to bear in its drafting. This is particularly so when one reads the Bill in conjunction with the explanatory notes to the draft Bill in the Law Commission report. A point in pure drafting style which I welcome enthusiastically is the felicitous and logical device of drafting the scope, construction and definitions of the chapters to the Bill at the beginning of those chapters. Surely this device contributes much to the clarity of any Bill. Indeed, I had begun to despair of ever seeing great examples of the draftsmen's art, such as the Sale of Goods Act and the Partnership Act, until I had considered this Bill and the report relating to it.
140
My second reason for enthusiasm—namely, the probable socio-legal effects of the Bill, which I as an amatuer believe will flow from it—stems from two sources. First, what some might believe to be only a pious promise; namely,
"with all my worldly goods I thee endow"
will, in part, be made flesh in law. From a layman's point of view I believe this to be immensely important not only in correcting juristic absurdity, but because I feel sure that it will have a binding effect on the sanctity of marriage. The influence of the law will encourage the young to think harder and longer before contemplating marriage if the property element of the sacrament of marriage is ratified, even in part, in law. Indeed, it might even encourage them rather more to seek a marriage partner rather than a mere bed partner. I also believe that if a spouse is given, even in part, security in the matrimonial home, he or she will be less likely to dive for financial cover under the skirts of the divorce laws. The Bill will have a unifying, not a divisive, effect on society's most fundamental institution.
Secondly, the Bill reflects the concept of a community of goods acquired and maintained by the partners in a marriage. I believe that this concept is more relevant today than it has ever been because of the dramatic change in the nature of the contribution to that community of goods since the last war. This change in the nature of the contribution has arisen largely for economic reasons, but has had the effect of entrenching in the hearts and the minds of the younger married people the reality of the community of goods.
This is far easier to illustrate than to define. Before the war a solicitor's clerk, say, earning £5 per week, would never dream of attempting to put matters right himself when his matrimonial home fell into disrepair. It was a case of "each man to his trade" and he could afford to hire help. Your Lordships may even recall Hilaire Belloc's Lord Finchley:
"Lord Finchley tried to mend the electric light
Himself; it struck him dead and serve him right
It is the duty of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan".
The reality today is that almost without exception every young man, apart from the well-to-do, is not only a breadwinner, but is a carpenter, glazier, electrician, house painter and decorator, plumber, heating

141
engineer and motor mechanic. This is evidenced in the dramatic growth of an industry, created only since the war, which has spawned an ugly phrase and its even uglier acronym.
The man's contribution has changed in scope and nature, just as has the woman's. This is only one illustration of a fundamental change in attitude towards what is in reality often the only, and certainly the largest, asset in most people's lives, and which I believe requires the ratification of the law.
This brings me to the point made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during a debate in your Lordships' House on 18th July last year. He said, if I may, with your Lordships' leave, quote him:
"the law of property which exists during the continuance of a marriage has a distinct bearing upon the law which applies at the breakdown of a marriage".—[Official Report, 18/7/79; col. 1458.]
Your Lordships will be mightily relieved to learn that I am not going to develop this theme, as I am not competent to do so. However, I wish to say only two things. One is that what the Lord Chancellor said is manifestly so, and the other is that if one believes in the modern reality of the community of goods, then any division between the spouses of that community of goods on the breakdown of marriage in equity takes on an even greater importance, and indeed poignancy, than ever it did before.
My Lords, I would believe it to be a very great mistake to make Committee points at this stage of the Bill. However, I would very quickly, and with respect, ask for guidance with regard to Clause 2(5). I may be quite wrong, but this clause appears to me to provide a further means of excluding statutory co-ownership, which was not the intention of the Law Commissioners. Furthermore, I believe that this clause provides the means for one spouse to exclude statutory co-ownership exclusively without the knowledge or say-so of his or her spouse. With that, my Lords, I welcome this Bill with more enthusiasm than I do with knowledge or skill, and wish it godspeed.
9.31 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, it is very late, and what I have to say will be brief. It is on a narrow point, and it
142
springs to some extent from the general purpose of the other Bill to which your Lordships have today given a Second Reading. The aim of that Bill was the preservation of the national heritage, so much of which exists in the form of houses of historic and architectural interest, and their contents, still owned by individuals. That so many of these houses and their collections of works of art are still in private hands is due to the system of inheritance which has operated in this country through the centuries. It has, too, usually been recognised as equitable that a family home of this kind, and its contents, would pass by descent, and not, at any rate permanently, to a widow or estranged wife unless there was no other money or property that could be made over to provide for her.
Many families have considered it a duty to preserve these houses and their collections. But, leaving aside all matters of sentiment, it is greatly to the advantage of ratepayers and taxpayers that they should not, as is so often the case in other European countries, be saddled with the burden of maintaining a large portion of the national heritage in addition to that already in museums. There are good practical reasons for encouraging individuals to remain in possession, and practical assistance, mainly through fiscal measures, has therefore been given by successive Governments irrespective of politics. Whereas the exceptions in the Bill should be adequate to support this policy in the ordinary run of cases, I am not sure that account has been taken of such a case as I shall describe in a moment—and I listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said just now as to how an historic house could be excluded from co-ownership. If I have misunderstood him, I know he will tell me so.
My Lords, this is the case, A married man may, after the transitional period provided for in Clause 8, inherit an historic house, possibly with a collection of works of art. Under the Bill, when the donor makes no direction excluding statutory co-ownership, the new owner (be it husband or wife) is unable to do so because he did not have an interest in the house before or on the marriage. On a possible divorce, the house would have to be sold to realise the wife's half-share. I suppose that in practice it would in some

143
cases be the contents, the works of art, or some of them, which would be sold, and here I can see tax difficulties. This might be unfortunate for the family, but we are not concerned with sentiment so much as with practical results. If cases could occur where, by reason of a co-ownership rule, there was a sale of an historic house or its contents, or of both, this might be to the disadvantage of the public and might conflict with the general aim of recent Governments to preserve these things if possible intact and if possible in situ.
In the case I have described, it would, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, be open to the spouses by agreement to bring themselves within the exceptions provided for by Clause 11; but it seems to be distasteful to require a happily married couple cold-bloodedly to contemplate their own divorce and to reach an agreement which might take effect in the event of their separation. Indeed, the Law Commission's Third Report on Family Property, on which this bill is based, stated in paragraph 1.22:
"It would be wrong to create a situation in which the donor could fulfil his desire only by putting pressure on the donee to make a declaration which, left to himself, he might not wish to make and which might well cause misunderstanding between him and his spouse".
This passage illustrates the same concern with the relationship between husband and wife that I have expressed.
I have referred only to a very narrow range of cases and, if my anxiety is unfounded, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will tell me so. In any case I shall be most interested to learn how the Bill would operate in the circumstances which I have outlined.
9.38 p.m.
Lord MCGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, I think that the first occasion on which married women's property was discussed in your Lordships' House was in 1856 when Lord Brougham presented a petition signed by a group of "literary ladies", as they were then described, which included Mrs. Gaskell, Eliza Fox, Elizabeth Barrett Browning and some 3,000 other signatories; and it was reported that Parliament received the petition
"very respectfully … without a sneer or a smile".
144
Reform of this law was taken up by Lord Brougham's Law Amendment Society and thus began a campaign, the first achievement of which was the seminal Married Women's Property Act 1882. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will be able to encourage the supporters of the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to believe that his measure will become the last major achievement of a campaign which runs back to the 1850s and has, since then, received the steady support of a responsible and informed public opinion.
Change has not been rapid perhaps because, as Dicey observed in discussing the 1882 Act:
"… changes in the law … affecting family life always offends the natural conservatism of ordinary citizens".
This conservatism has been given full weight, I think, for a century or more and I feel that the supporters of the Bill may ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to count this long history in his assessment of the public support for the Bill to which he referred when replying to the debate last July.
I do not intend to weary your Lordships with further observations which the many contributions to this debate have rendered unnecessary. I conclude by echoing the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in hoping that this will, indeed, be an historic occasion in the history of the relations between husband and wife.
9.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for very long at this late hour. We have been reminded—and first of all by my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches who proposed the Second Reading of this Bill in his excellent and lucid speech—that this is the second time that I have found myself winding up a debate on this very topic—the first being on 18th July. Both debates have been interesting to me and both enjoyable. But neither has been wholly satisfactory from my point of view. On 18th July those speakers we attracted were very good, interesting and very worthwhile speakers; but we failed to attract a very big House. I felt and I believe—although perhaps I ought not to say so without consulting him—

145
that my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches might very well have had the same feeling about our debate, that although we enjoyed it and I hope enjoyed one another's speeches, we had not had a representative view of what Parliament was likely to think if this Bill were brought before it. I certainly felt so and I think he may have done so. At all events, I am very glad that he did bring this debate in this form about six months after we had our first debate. It obviously makes my task in replying to the debate more difficult, because I have said a great deal of what I wanted to say about it, and I do not propose to say it again.
This debate has been slightly unsatisfactory from my point of view because we have heard from speakers nothing but a chorus of praise for the principles of the Bill, for its draftsmanship, for all its social and economic effects, and for the philosophy of marriage which it reflects. I am bound to tell the House that those who have been absent from the debate—and they are a very large majority—are not necessarily so favourable to the Bill as those who have attended and have spoken in the debate. I will begin to tell the House in a moment why I think that might be the case. But I think that it would be a mistake for both my noble and learned friends—if they will allow me each to call them by that affectionate description—on the Cross-Benches, or for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to suppose that this Bill will not run into opposition when it comes before another place. I do not know who it was to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was referring. Perhaps I had better not try to find out! But there are such people there still.
The first thing that I have to say is that the Bill in its present form is opposed rather strongly by the Law Society. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was originally upon the list of speakers. He has not spoken. I rather fancy that he would have repeated—and he very likely would have repeated—the deprecatory comments which he made, speaking very largely for the Law Society, in the July debate. It would be a great mistake to suppose that this Bill will not in fact run into quite serious opposition from another place if it is discussed there.
146
I am also bound to disappoint my noble and learned friend in saying that the Government cannot find time this Session for this Bill. I told him that in July, so I hope he will be able to bear his disappointment with fortitude this evening, if I simply say that again. The other thing I want to say, which not only disappoints him but disappoints me, is that the Occupation Bill, which I categorically said I hoped to see on the statute book this Session, certainly will not get there now. I regret having to say that, but I made a special inquiry when he referred to it in his speech, and the prospects are not good in this Session for the Occupation Bill, which I had hoped would go forward.
The other thing which I must say a little candidly to the House is that my own misgivings about some of the things in the Bill have grown in the last six months, and I should like to say frankly why this is so. It has been stressed, and rightly, throughout this debate that what we are talking about is the ownership of the matrimonial home during a happy marriage. In fact the divorce laws when a marriage breaks down lead to a result which is not altogether different—but not altogether the same—from what is proposed in this Bill.
To begin with, it is usual on a divorce—and that is a situation which I cannot rule out as a possibility—that the possession of the house, if not sold, normally goes to the wife and children. The ownership is usually shared and the house is sold and the proceeds divided, subject to the wife's occupation. So I would, if I may, differ slightly from my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, who spoke as if the happy wife during marriage was sure of her occupation of the house, but if the marriage broke down, or if for any reason her husband let her down, she was cast from what he described as the trapeze on to the hard ground beneath. This is, I think, an inaccurate statement of what in fact is likely to happen to her on divorce.
I am bound to say that I have had some second thoughts about whether the Bill is as favourable to women or to wives, or indeed is as wise in its general provision, as speakers have said. I want to be perfectly frank about this. I am basically favourable to the idea of co-ownership. I say in passing that in, I think, more than half of the cases of marriage in this

147
country, the house is in the name of both husband and wife, and co-ownership is therefore a fact, and a growing fact, about society.
However, one is not concerned—and here I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman—with the case when the parties make their wishes known, because they have thought the matter out and want it that way. Nor is one concerned in this Bill with the case where one of the parties has decided against the Bill altogether and has proceeded to contract out through one of the exceptions. What one is concerned with, as my noble and learned friend quite candidly said, is the case where nobody does anything about it; that is to say, where nobody says, "I want this to be co-owned", or, "I want it not to be co-owned", or, "I want to give it to my wife" or, "I want to give it to my husband". It is some of the consequences of that—touched on, I think, not absolutely accurately, but still touched on, by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in one of the later speeches of the debate—that I want to try to explore a little.
What the Bill does, if nobody does anything, is to make what is called a joint tenancy, which, as I ventured to say to my noble friend Lady Vickers in the course of her speech, means that the survivor takes all. If the husband dies before the wife, the wife gets the lot; and if the wife dies before the husband, the husband gets the lot.
Let us just see how that will work itself out in practice. I suppose it would be likely to be all right if one owned an historic mansion. I say that to my noble friend Lord Middleton, because I suppose that the family solicitor would advise either the father of the heir or the heir himself to do something about it. But supposing that he did not—and it does not for this purpose matter very much whether one is talking about Hatfield House or No. 249A Anerley Road, Crystal Palace—the position is the same. The house is in the possession of the one family and has been for some time, perhaps for two or three generations. The owner—let us call him Mr. Hogg of 249A Anerley Road—marries Miss Smith and she thereupon becomes joint tenant because neither has objected to the operation
148
of the general law. On the other hand, Mr. Hogg does want the house to stay in his family; it is a family house. Mr. Hogg unfortunately dies. Mrs. Hogg, who was formerly Miss Smith, takes the lot, marries again outside the family and then dies. The first family loses the house. The second husband gets it if nobody does anything about it. Is that justice? For this purpose it does not matter whether you are a woman or a man; the story can be told the other way round.
Let us take another situation. Supposing the first marriage has children and that it has ended in divorce or death. The first marriage has children and nobody does anything about it. But there is a second marriage, and the second marriage results in children, too. As a result of the joint tenancy, the survivor of the first marriage gets the lot. And if he or she does nothing about it the survivor of the second marriage gets the lot and the children of the first marriage are altogether dispossessed. Is that social justice? I do not know; but I must tell the House that that is the basis of my growing doubts about the matter. I am being absolutely candid and frank about it.
When I spoke in July, I was a relatively young Lord Chancellor in his second term. I had a recollection of my first four years and I was tremendously predisposed both to the Law Commission as an institution—I have paid my tributes to it again and again and again—and also to the state of the law, as it then was, in general being what I had thought it to be during my practice at the Bar. I touched on this in my speech in July, but the situation has very greatly developed since then.
I am being literally pelted with constituency letters from the other place. There is something called the Campaign for Justice in Divorce which has prompted many of them, but they come from just as many women as they do from men. The two camps are not divided into the war between the sexes. They are divided into the first wife and her children in the one camp, and the second wife, after divorce, or the third wife, after two divorces, in the other camp. The have all got a case. But the overwhelmingly large numbers of letters which I am receiving now come from second wives and husbands who have contracted a

149
second marriage and who have got two families with two sets of children to keep when, frankly, there is not enough to go round.
I am answering these letters at the moment in a negative sense. I point to Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and I ask the Member of Parliament concerned, "What is wrong with that? Please suggest the way in which this is an unjust law". I do not get very many intelligible replies, as might be expected, because they do not like a Lord Chancellor who replies to a letter by asking a question instead of giving an answer. But the overwhelming burden of the correspondence that I am receiving is from second wives and husbands who have contracted second marriages, saying that the law has gone too far in the direction of the first wife. This may be wholly untrue. Tomorrow, or the next day, I hope to meet the Family Law Association who, by a strange quirk of fortune (perhaps it is an ironic joke) always have their annual dinner on Saint Valentine's Day, and I am going to ask them this question.
All I am saying is that we should not assume that by giving half the property to the first wife we are necessarily corresponding with social life as it exists today. There has not been a speech that I have listened to, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to my noble friend Lord Morris, which has not basically assumed that we are dealing with a Christian marriage, that is to say the lifelong union between one man and one woman. But that is not the life of the second half of the 20th century. We are dealing with a situation in which divorce is first of all about forming a second marriage; secondly, it is about the custody of and access to children; and thirdly, it is about money and property.
The second wife has a pretty rough time. She has her legal rights. You can say to her "Well, you knew what you were taking on when you married this man. You knew he had been married before. You knew he had four children". But she finds when she gets past the honeymoon that the first wife is constantly making applications to the Court for the payment of maintenance, perhaps for the sale of what had been the matrimonial home and half the assets. She finds
150
that she has to work for a living although she is bearing a series of children on the second marriage to the same man and she feels very hardly treated by the law. There has not been a word in this debate about that social situation, of which there are hundreds of thousands of cases going on at the present time.
I must tell the House that I am receiving a deputation of MPs led by Mr. Leo Abse—known to most of us who have been in the House of Commons for some years—and there are so many MPs who want to join it that my room will not hold them. I said "You must limit your numbers or I shall not be able to sit down in my own chair" and they are all making the sort of case that I am making now. I do ask my noble and learned friends on the Cross Benches, when they are dealing with the ownership of property creating this joint tenancy, to bear in mind whether on the whole they are ultimately going to face a situation, if the marriage subsequently breaks down, which takes us still further along the road of this form of social disruption. I have these disquietudes.
Having said that, I believe that husband and wife are wise to own the matrimonial home in common. More do now than do not and I think that is a very strong pointer, but no trouble is likely to arise until their marriage breaks down and then there are other mouths to feed and other women to think about. All I say is, do not assume that because this has had an easy ride in this debate it will necessarily get an easy ride when it goes down to another place, because I do not think it will. I am only too glad that this should be aired.
The Law Commission, the creation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is one of the best things invented in the field of law reform this century, or perhaps in any century. It used to be said that it took three Lord Chancellors to achieve a law reform. I think the thing has now been short-circuited by one, but even so the inertia of the system is something which absolutely terrifies me at times, and I do not think I am less likely to be terrified when I see the results of this being debated in another place. I am glad it has come before Parliament. I hope it goes down to the House of Commons, but I cannot promise it an easy ride when it gets there, and I cannot promise

151
Government assistance, at any rate this Session.
Having said that, I hope my noble and learned friend, whose friendship I value so much, and my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman and other noble Lords who have spoken so warmly in favour of the Bill, will not take exception to what I have said. I said in July what I thought about the proposal, as it then was, and I broadly think the same now, but my misgivings have increased rather then diminished in the interval. I thought it fair to put them before the House in a perfectly frank and friendly manner. I hope this Bill goes through; I hope it will be considered in the other place, and in the light of all the opinions expressed I hope a wise decision will be come to. I feel it my duty to be the trustee for wise legislation, not to enforce my will on other people. Social life is changing too fast for Lord Chancellors to think they know everything, and I do not think I know everything. I know I do not.
10.2 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the speeches that have been made, apart from the last by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I am very grateful to those who have fleshed out the bare bones of this Bill, legally and sociologically, and I am very grateful for the unanimous support, until it came to my noble and learned friend's speech. I am bound to say that, if one can trust a social survey, it is the speeches which have been made other than the Government speech which reflect opinion in this country.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned opposition by the Law Society. The Law Society in their evidence to the Law Commission accepted the principle of co-ownership, but produced a scheme so fantastically complicated that the Law Commission rightly disregarded it and adopted this one as far simpler—as it is. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said that he could not promise Government assistance. I rather expected that, and I take it that that means that if the Bill goes on, this Session at any rate, I cannot look for the assistance of the Law Commission even, or the draftsmen, or officials. Would my noble and learned
152
friend say whether I have misunderstood him?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure that I have gone as far as that. I cannot speak for the Law Commission at the moment. It had not occurred to me that my noble and learned friend would want the assistance of the Law Commission. I think I can say that he will not get a Government draftsman other than a Law Commission draftsman. We will see how we get along in Committee. I do not want to withdraw help from him, because, as he knows, I am broadly favourable to what he is trying to do. But I think I can say that he will not get a Government draftsman, as they are already fully engaged. What would happen with the Law Commission, I should like to consider at greater length, and I will let him know.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I am bound to say that the Law Commission is extremely unlikely to give any help in those circumstances. At any rate, I understand the position that I am now in. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack queried whether the Bill was really favourable to married women. He made a considerable play about the divorce law. Of course, the Bill is not about the divorce law at all. On the contrary, my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman was absolutely right when he said—and the point was made by the Law Commission on page 4 of the report—that, in order to get reasonable treatment on property, one must be either a widow or a divorced woman, and that the woman who stands by her marriage, unless the husband has himself put the house in joint names, has no right at all.
The other point is that, as the Law Commission pointed out, to rely on the Inheritance Act and the Divorce Property Acts may be completely useless, because the matrimonial assets may have been dissipated before the husband dies or before the marriage terminates in divorce. I agreed with a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord said, but it is as though he stood up and said, "I am passionately devoted to cheese and therefore I shall oppose anything that is put forward to prevent the quarrying of chalk".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend will forgive me, I must say that I think that he is being a little unfair to me. Everyone in this House has spoken in favour of the Bill. I thought it my duty to put some of the arguments which might be presented against it. He must not assume that I am resiling from what I said, which was relatively favourable, in July. I do not want it to be said that I have come out against the Bill. I only wanted to put a case which I want my noble and learned friend to answer as we go along in the course of the Bill—either now or in the Committee stage. He must not accuse me of putting a series of false points and of being antagonistic to him at all. However, those points need to be answered.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I have no objection to his saying what there is against the Bill, but one does not controvert the contents of the Bill by attacking the present law on divorce and the way it operates, because the Bill has nothing to do with divorce, except that it puts the woman who stands by her marriage in as favourable a position as a woman who has recourse to the divorce court.
Apart from that, my noble and learned friend asked whether the Bill was really so favourable to married women. The best test of that is that the married women themselves think that it is. The married women's organisations are 100 per cent. in favour, and all the noble Baronesses who have spoken today attest that that is the general view of women. Who is more likely to be right about that? The Law Commission took the same view.
I shall not deal with the other points raised in the debate, except for three. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the position of Mr. Marsh's dissent. My noble and learned friend Lord Scarman dealt with that matter and gave the other side of the argument. I can only say that it seems to me to be the sort of point that can be decided in Committee. It is a contestable point. I myself tend to favour Mr. Marsh's
154
point of view. At any rate I have an open mind on the matter.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers, Lady Lockwood and Lady Faithfull, asked about council lettings. Under the Bill it matters not at all that a council insists on putting the tenancy in the name of the husband, because the machinery of the Bill operates in such a way that if that is done, the husband holds as trustee for himself and his wife as joint tenants. So whatever the council does, it cannot prevent the Bill from operating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned the New Zealand legislation, which is very important. New Zealand has led the way in this field. They were 30 years ahead of us in family provision and they have been ahead of us in the field with which your Lordships are dealing this evening. They have found that this sort of measure is advantageous to married women and is workable. So I think that that was an important point which was made.
The only other point which I should like to consider further is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I read Clauses 8 and 9 combined with Clause 32 as meeting his point. But, as I agree with his premises, I should like to consider the matter further and, if he will allow me, write to him about it. The other points were rather more Committee points. I conclude as I started by expressing gratitude to your Lordships both for the support in the speeches and for the way in which the speeches made up for the deficiencies in my own.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDWARD BERRY AND DORIS EILLEEN WARD (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
Petition for Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill (certified by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means under Private Bill Standing Order No.3)annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Personal Bills Committee.
  TAXATION ON PERSONAL INCOME
  TAXATION ON PERSONAL INCOME
  ZAMBIA: PROVISION OF AID
  ZAMBIA: PROVISION OF AID
  REFUGEES IN JIBUTI
  REFUGEES IN JIBUTI
  THE SPECIAL CONSTABULARY: WORKING PARTY REPORT
  THE SPECIAL CONSTABULARY: WORKING PARTY REPORT