Sitting of 10 March 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENERGY

    British National Oil Corporation
    Mr. John H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will be in a position to tell the House about his plans for the future structure of British National Oil Corporation.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the future of the British National Oil Corporation.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the corporation will limit its regulation powers as well as participation in drilling and production activities? Is he aware that a number of operators who have downstream interests are concerned about the power to buy back and not being able to use their own investment for their own downstream operations?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, I am aware of these concerns. They were expressed to the Government as soon as they came to office, which is why we took steps to limit some of the corporation's privileges, especially the right to be on operating committees. I made clear last summer, and again in. the autumn, that it is the Government's policy to keep the necessary access to oil provided by the trading operations of the corporation. That involves keeping participation agreements and the arrangements that go with them. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern
    900
    and I shall examine these matters carefully.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that in no circumstances will the Government, for doctrinaire reasons, sell off to private enterprise such a valuable national asset?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman talks of doctrine and dogma. The dogma that I should find hard to defend is that the State should be the 100 per cent. owner of an enterprise and an asset in all instances. That is a dogma that is hard to defend, especially when people are beginning to have some doubts about the efficiency of collectivist State centralised agencies.
    Mr. Renton: Will my right hon. Friend take on board, contrary to the opinions expressed by he hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), the strong enthusiasm among BNOC employees and the British public generally to invest and to have the opportunity of investing in the corporation either directly or through their pension funds? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this is done in such a manner that the company cannot subsequently be renationalised by a Labour Government?
    Mr. Howell: I recognise that ownership of assets throughout the State sector is a sentiment expressed by a number of employees. It is a healthy and timely development. It is important that it is made clear that the Labour Party dissociates itself totally from the sinister threat that it might confiscate any shares from the State sector that pass into the hands of ordinary members of the public.
    Dr. Owen: As it is now clear that selling off the corporation would not even help the public sector borrowing requirement, since it would mean forgoing substantial revenues in future years and gravely damaging the United Kingdom's control over the United Kingdom continental shelf, is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the House any reason why he should even be considering the privatisation of the corporation?
    Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. The security of supply and access to oil is obtained by the trading operations of the corporation.

    901
    The important thing for the 1980s is that we should have healthy enterprise in the North Sea and good security of supply. I am not convinced either that we inherited the best system for that or that narrow State control is the best answer to encouraging enterprise in the North Sea or anywhere else.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the Chamber to ask a supplementary question. Then we must move on.
    Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend able to indicate whether the trading company will operate like a crude oil broker? Is it expected that the exploration and production company will be an integrated enterprise in which people may take shares?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend will have to await the details of my statement.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take the fullest account of the views of the chairman, whom his Government appointed, and of the board—to the effect that they do not want to have BNOC split into an upstream-downstream operation, and that they see no value in public equity?
    Mr. Howell: From the outset, I have been in close contact with the previous chairman, the present chairman and the board on their various views. I shall take full account of them.

    Gas Gathering System
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the gas gathering system study for the United Kingdom continental shelf.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to have enough evidence to make a judgment about the feasibility of a gas gathering pipeline.
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress in planning the North Sea gas gathering pipeline.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): The British
    902
    Gas Corporation and Mobil North Sea Ltd. are making good progress in their study of a new gas gathering line and expect to submit their report by early April. I am told that the results look very encouraging. The Government's judgment about the feasibility of the line will be made in the light of that report.
    Mr. Douglas: In view of that answer, why has the Minister been making optimistic statements about the report all round the country—everywhere except the House of Commons? When shall we have the opportunity to debate the issue? Exactly how do the Government intend to underwrite their responsibilities for this crucial development?
    Mr. Gray: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this development will be crucial. He will be aware that my officials are in constant touch with the progress of the study in order to advise me on the national interest, as results become available. Speculation has its own fascination, but the Government's judgment will be formed in the light of the study's report. Due opportunity will be given to the House to discuss these matters after the Government have received the report, which is expected to be at about the end of this month.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must avoid the flaring-off of excess gas during oil production in the North Sea, and that the extension of gas pipelines would not only help us achieve that but enable us to increase oil production?
    Mr. Gray: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have already taken steps to try to reduce the amount of flaring at present taking place. The pipeline would make a considerable contribution to that. There has been identified about 12 trillion cubic feet which might be collected.
    Mr. Skeet: As there is so much gas available in the North Sea, which could be gathered by a pipeline, will my hon. Friend make sure that it is made available to the chemical industry, which has been starved of it in the past? Will he also ensure that there is a Norwegian

    903
    link? There might be a very good opportunity to link the Norwegian system with our own.
    Mr. Gray: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that it will be a matter for commercial negotiation. We have already offered the Norwegians participation, but, regrettably, it was refused. We should still like to co-operate with the Norwegians, but it must be appreciated that we cannot hold up our plans in order to accommodate them.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend, once the study is completed, to permit companies other than the British Gas Corporation to purchase the methane from the gas-gathering system?
    Mr. Gray: When the report is received, the Government will give it every consideration, but I can make no further comment at this stage.

    National Coal Board
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he expects to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the leaders of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Energy when last he met the chairman of the National Coal Board.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I meet the chairman frequently.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give the NCB every encouragement to go ahead with the proposed £7 million investment at Polmaise colliery in my constituency? Is he aware that that would help to ensure a more viable future for the colliery and better job prospects for my constituents? Does he agree that new investment would vindicate the fight that the miners and I put up several years ago to stop the closure of the pit, which has since risen to near the top of the league table for output per man-shift?
    Mr. Moore: I know that new developments are being proposed at Polmaise. I
    904
    do not wish to go into detail now, but a scheme might be prepared for consideration by the board, which, clearly, will give serious consideration to any rational proposals for such profitable developments.
    Mr. Adley: In the light of the encouraging increases in both output and productivity—including, I believe, the first real increase in deep-mined coal since 1973—which have followed the Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the reductions in direct taxation, will my hon. Friend congratulate the board and the miners and make sure that the message is not lost on the Chancellor?
    Mr. Moore: I am sure that all those involved in the coal industry will be aware that an industry with such long lead times, a heavily extractive industry, requires substantial capital, quality manpower and excellent management. Equally, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will wish to be reminded that, happily, we have seen major improvements in productivity. Clearly, one would not wish to take anything away from the degree to which the tax changes have added the incentive that has improved productivity.
    Mr. Wainwright: The next time the Minister meets the chairman of the NCB will he raise with him the future of the chemical and coking plants run by the board and NCB (Coal Products) Ltd? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Manvers Main coking plant is scheduled to be closed in the not-too-distant future, that we are importing coking coal and that there is heavy unemployment in the area? Will he do something to ensure that the coking plant is kept alive or that there is another to replace it?
    Mr. Moore: I cannot go into detail, but I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's particular concern. I am aware that in his constituency he has two pits—Manvers and Wath that have supplied the Manvers Main plant. I am delighted by the degree to which the production of those pits has been protected under the Central Electricity Generating Board arrangements. The improved washing facilities at Manvers will help that. But the details are a matter for decision within the NCB.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: Does my hon. Friend visualise that investment will lead to an expansion of output from British mines? How much of any increase will be liquified and used for petroleum and liquid fossil fuel products?
    Mr. Moore: There is a £611 million-plus investment in the coal industry's capital this year, rising to more than £800 million in 1980–81. That is expected to be a profitable investment; it would not have been approved otherwise.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister recognise that there is a third pit involved in the Manvers Main plant—namely, Kilnhurst, in my constituency? The concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is entirely justified. After discussions with the chairman of the NCB, will the Government approach the European Community to try to ensure that, with particular regard to the coal industry, a much more sensible energy policy is pursued?
    Mr. MooreI recognise the hon. Gentleman's position. I know about Kilnhurst. The added capacity at Avenue at Chesterfield coke works is helping, along with the CEGB extra take. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in welcoming the degree to which the NCB has adjusted to a radical reduction in demand by one of the major clients of the coal industry for its products.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that there is a great need for his Department continually to reaffirm its continued investment in the mining industry, for reasons that some of his hon. Friends have outlined this afternoon? As the hon. Gentleman has reconvened the working party on research and development in coal, will he outline the kind of programme that he proposes it should follow? Does he intend to publish its findings?
    Mr. Moore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have only recently reconvened. There has been one meeting of the working party under my chairmanship. We have a long programme planned. I shall give details in a written answer if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I should like us to get further into our work before we talk about publication of the findings. I imagine that that would
    906
    be in the interests of the House. Perhaps I may wait on that until we are a little further into the programme.

    Energy Output and Demand
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the total output of energy increased in the last five years for which figures are available; and what is his latest estimate of the increase or decrease of energy demand to 1985.
    Mr. David Howell: United Kingdom indigenous energy production totalled 328 million tonnes of coal equivalent in 1979, an increase of some 85 per cent. on 1974. Demand for primary fuel over the next five years will depend on a number of economic factors. On the assumptions of "Energy Projections 1979", demand in 1985 would be some 3 to 7 per cent. above present levels.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that studied reply. Although I recognise that our gas and oil resources are finite and that known alternative sources of energy could not make more than a marginal impact on the supply figures, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is essential for us to expand our coal and nuclear power industries even if energy conservation is much more of a reality in the next five years than it has been in the past five?
    Mr. Howell: My answer to my hon. Friend, again, is "Yes". We need nuclear power expansion, we need coal industry expansion, and we need a very substantial gain from increased energy efficiency. The projections which I referred to earlier imply, by the year 2,000 a 20 per cent. gain in energy efficiency through energy conservation.
    Dr. Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been a considerable fall-off in electricity demand? Will he let the House know the implications of that for the existing AGR programme at Heysham and Torness and also for the future nuclear power programme? Can he confirm that there will be no question of an increase in electricity price rewarding electricity consumers for a fall in demand?
    Mr. Howell: I can confirm that recently the electricity supply industry reduced somewhat its forecasts of sales in

    907
    1986–87. Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I share the view that if there are increasing costs arising from lower sales, that is not by any means automatically a reason for passing on all the costs to the consumer. The implications for the overall capital and current programmes of the electricity supply industry are being looked at in the light of the new forecasts.
    Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no new capital programme instituted at the moment would have any relevance within that lead time of five years? Therefore, is my right hon. Friend confident that the industry has enough capacity to be able to meet that band of a 3 to 7 per cent. increase?
    Mr. Howell: I am not clear what my hon. Friend's point is.
    Mr. Emery: In his original answer, my right hon. Friend suggested that the increase over that period would range from 3 to 7 per cent. Has the industry the capability of being able to meet that? If it has not now, it never will.
    Mr. Howell: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear my original reply, which was that the electricity supply industry was now forecasting somewhat lower electricity sales. If my hon. Friend is asking whether the industry has capacity to meet these needs, the answer is that, with its present capital and current programmes, it believes that it will be able to meet all the needs upon it.
    Mr. Palmer: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the new electricity demand figures, will he say whether the Government's desire to expand the nuclear power programme, with which I do not disagree, will triumph over the Government's equally strong desire to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement?
    Mr. Howell: The case for nuclear power as a component of future electricity supply stands on the merits which have been put forward for it, which are concerned with its economic cost and the desirability of a larger nuclear electricity generating capacity in the future. In the meantime, it is correct to say that this industry has to meet its financial targets and keep within its cash limits. These two problems have to be reconciled.
    Mr. Rost: How does the Government's forecast of electricity demand differ from the CEGB's latest downward revision? Was not my right hon. Friend made aware of this downward revision? Why is it happening, and what will be the impact on the nuclear power programme?
    Mr. Howell: The electricity supply industry has come forward with these reduced sales forecasts. My Department makes energy projections from time to time. When such proposals come forward from the electricity supply industry, they are, of course, examined in my Department and have an effect on energy projections. Part of the sales forecasts relates to the very short term and to the short-term fall in demand because of warmer weather, so that would not really fit in with the longer-term problem of energy projections. The Government remain fully committed to the nuclear programme which I outlined before Christmas. That is not affected by the short-term matters that we are discussing now.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Would the Secretary of State care to comment on press reports this weekend of a possible cut in the future provision not only of nuclear power stations but of conventional ones? Is he aware of the disastrous effect that this would have on our base industries manufacturing power plant to supply both the home market and its export potential? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disastrous consequences that this would have for unemployment?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the consequences for the nuclear power ordering programme and the interests of our industry and jobs. But I cannot comment on newspaper speculation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
    Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the industrial need for energy in West Lancashire has reduced markedly over the last five years? Is that a picture which is reflected nationwide, and is my right hon. Friend concerned about it?
    Mr. Howell: Projections of energy demand are under constant review in my Department. We have to take a view of the likely growth of energy demand in the future. The investment necessary to meet that demand, whether nuclear, coal, oil, gas or conservation, is a matter for constant reassessment and a flexible

    909
    approach. The views being taken about future growth of demand obviously are a very important component in trying to get a balanced and flexible energy policy in the future.
    Mr. AshtonThe constant reassessments taking place must be based on some estimate of the unemployment figure. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the unemployment figure for 1985–86 will be well above 2 million, because that is what is indicated by the assessment of the drop in demand that he has given?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. We are concerned with the growth in demand for different forms of power. That depends on the relationship between the growth in demand for, say, electricity, and the growth of output and other energy coefficients. If, as we go along, increasing efficiency is gained in the use of energy, that in itself will have a depressing effect on the rate of growth in the demand for energy. It is a separate question from the one with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

    Pressure Water Reactor
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the rate of progress of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's evaluation of the pressure water reactor.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that, even if the inspectorate gives the PWR a clean bill of health, that will not allay the widespread public concern about the PWR? Does he accept that the decision to build a PWR will be a political one and that political decisions should be settled by debates and votes in this House?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to cast aspersions on the integrity and expertise of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It would not be a political decision. We have always said that a decision to build a PWR would be subject to the full safety clearance, that there would be an inquiry, and that that clearance would have to be given by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm in the clearest possible
    910
    terms that, to allay public concern about this matter, the Government have made it clear all along that after the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has considered the matter there will be a full and extensive public inquiry?
    Mr. Lamont: That is what I have just said to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans).
    Mr. Hooley: In the light of the serious understaffing of the NII, is the Minister satisfied that it can carry out all its existing very extensive duties and make the complex evaluations necessary of the PWR?
    Mr. Lamont: Yes, I am so satisfied. The shortfall in the NII complement is being looked at urgently. There is a pay increase which has taken effect from 1 January and is part of the normal review of pay. There will be another review on 1 April. We take the staffing problems extremely seriously. But we are confident that the work on the PWR can go ahead.

    Nuclear Energy Generation
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about public attitudes to the generation of nuclear energy.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I believe that there is wide recognition of the need for nuclear power.
    Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister look out for the result of this month's referendum on nuclear energy in Sweden, where it has become a major political question which has been widely debated, so that we can all get an idea of how far the mentality of protest is truly representative of an informed public opinion?
    Mr. Lamont: We shall certainly follow the results of the referendum in Sweden. None of the options in Sweden gives a clear go-ahead for nuclear power. The one which is most favourable for nuclear power allows it to go ahead only after the completion of those reactors now under construction or now in use. However, the referendum will certainly give us some guide to public opinion elsewhere.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that the Government are now in danger of

    911
    losing public confidence in their nuclear energy proposals, first because they have gone for a PWR which is widely regarded as being inherently unsafe from a design point of view, something confirmed by Sir Alan Cottrell, the Government's former chief scientist; secondly, because there are serious difficulties in the PWRs used in France: and thirdly, because, when the previous Government were in office the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate made it clear to me that the Westinghouse PWR would not be acceptable and that major and extensive modifications would be required? Is he aware that unless the Government are candid with the public and do not try to rush through a programme without a debate and decision in the House, they will lose the confidence of the British people in this component of our energy policy?
    Mr. Lamont: If the Government are in any danger of losing public confidence in this dispute, it will be not least because the right hon. Gentleman himself has done so much to stir up public opinion and to give rise to groundless fears. It is a complete travesty to say that the Government are not being candid and open, when this Government have published so much more documentation than the right hon. Gentleman's Administration published. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the NII has said that, even after the Three Mile Island incident, there is no reason why a PWR should not be designed to satisfy the most stringent security requirements. Fourth, I am sure that the NII, in its safety evaluations, will take into account Sir Alan Cottrell's views. Sir Alan himself has had a consultation with the NII and was brought up to date on some points of which he might not have been aware. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be glad to learn, as I am, that Sir Alan has confidence that no dangerous cracks in PWR pressure vessels will escape detection if the recommendations of the Marshall group on pressure vessel integrity are carried out.
    Mr. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that serious reservations about the scale of the Government's nuclear power commitment are now widespread, and nowhere more so than in areas such as Northumberland, which are scheduled for both power stations and nuclear waste disposal? Should he not recognise that,
    912
    whatever the view of those who do not have proposals for such developments on their doorstep, the picture is very different among those threatened with them?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent the scale of the Government's nuclear programme, because this Government's nuclear programme is much less than that planned in other European countries—much less than in France and Germany and much less than the 40 gigawatts of nuclear power foreseen in the Green Paper of the previous Secretary of State for Energy.
    Mr. Dorrell: Although I welcome the Government's continued and firm commitment to the nuclear programme, does the Minister agree that some of the public opposition that has been stirred up by statements such as those that we have just heard can be allayed by a recognition of the amount of money that the Government are continuing to put into research into benevolent sources of energy as alternatives to the hydrocarbons? Does he accept that that is an important part of a programme to get wider recognition of the need for nuclear power? Are the Government still committed to maintaining their programme of research into alternative sources of energy?
    Mr. Lamont: Yes, the Government are committed to continuing with research into the alternatives. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the energy projections of the Department include a contribution from those sources of energy in the year 2000.

    Fuel Costs
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Energy by how much the price per therm for coal, gas, nuclear-generated electricity and petrol has risen in the last 10 years.
    Mr. David Howell: Between mid-January 1970 and mid-January 1980 the prices of coal, gas, electricity and petrol purchased by the domestic sector increased by 301 per cent., 124 per cent., 303 per cent. and 278 per cent. respectively. The increases are based on information used in the compilation of the general index of retail prices.

    913
    Information on consumer prices of electricity generated specifically by nuclear power stations is not available as all electricity is supplied to the national grid.
    Mr. Miller: On the basis of those figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that the price of petrol has not risen in line with other fuel prices since 1970?
    Mr. Howell: I think that my figures show the comparative movements over the 10 years. I think that I said that the price of petrol had risen by 278 per cent., which is lower than the prices that I gave for coal and electricity. That is what the figures confirm.
    Mr. Ashton: What sort of pricing policy is it that raises the price of gas because the customers are using too much, cuts insulation grants in half after talking of a policy of conservation and then wants to increase the price of electricity because the customers are not using enough?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Member's last statement is inaccurate, as I made clear in an earlier answer, so I hope that he will withdraw it. As for insulation, I think that he is confusing the amount of Government activity and expenditure on conservation with the amount of conservation achieved. The Government take the view that conservation programmes should be judged by results, not by the amount of activity and the number of programmes that politicians can dream up to spend taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Forman: In the light of his earlier answer about the movement of prices, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would help the Government's conservation policy if this were reflected in the real price movements, particularly for petrol? Can he advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that direction before the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Howell: Those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to direct his observations on that aspect, which concerns tax, to the Chancellor.

    Nationalised Fuel Industries (Chairman)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet
    914
    the chairman of the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. David Howell: I meet the chairman from time to time to discuss matters of common interest.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the hardship that will be caused to many people as a result or the revised electricity price increases? Is it not time that the Government gave information—either from the right hon. Gentleman himself or from the Secretary of State for Social Services—about a proper national scheme that would give genuine assistance to those on low incomes in protecting themselves against the never-ending increases in gas and electricity prices?
    Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we intend to bring forward extra help for those in need who are faced with fuel hardship. It is common ground that it makes sense to move towards economic pricing for fuel in an energy-hungry world. That is a sane energy policy. Nevertheless, the needs of those in hardship must be met. We have made one move in that direction and have said that we intend to bring forward extra help. That is a sensible policy, recognised by the nationalised industries consumer councils as well and is a great improvement on the situation we found when we came to office, when there was no provision at all to help those in fuel hardship.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend make a point of meeting Mr. Glyn England very soon and point out to him that it would be unfortunate if, because of temporary difficulties over its cash limits, the CEGB was to postpone the AGR programme in a way which might threaten the dispersal of design and production teams?
    Mr. Howell: The detailed capital and current cost programmes of the CEGB and the whole electricity industry are a matter for the chairman concerned, whom I meet from time to time. However, no doubt my hon. Friend's comments will be noted. The task of the electricity supply industry is to meet the financial targets that it has been set.
    Mr. Stoddart: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of the

    915
    CEGB, will he discuss with him the need for a 28 per cent. planned margin rather than an 18 per cent. margin, such as the industry was running in the 1960s, and the effect that that would have on a future programme? Will he also discuss with him smaller power stations which can be used with combined heat and power installations?
    Mr. Howell: The 28 per cent., which I think is the long-term planning margin of the electricity supply industry, is of course discussed with the chairman of the boards of the industry, so the answer is that I do discuss these things. However, it has to be borne in mind that the price which is undoubtedly paid for maintaining a high planning margin is the price which is matched by the need to provide secure supplies at peak times on cold days. People expect from the industry regular supplies even at periods of peak demand and that inevitably involves large margins.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does my hon. Friend recognise that some of us are disturbed at this concept he calls fuel hardship? Hardship is hardship and it is the responsibility of the DHSS to deal with it. If every Department has to make provision for particular hardships arising out of its affairs will we not be in even greater difficulties with public spending than we are at the moment?
    Mr. Howell: I have indicated that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who has been giving attention to this question and that it is through social programmes that hardship of all kinds should be met, particularly hardship that arises from violent and sudden increases in something as basic as fuel costs.
    Dr. Owen: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the inconsistencies in his reply to the question on the fall in electricity demand? On the one hand he gave an assurance that he does not wish to see an increase in the price of electricity yet on the other he gave an assurance to his hon. Friends that he wishes to see the AGR programme go forward and he wishes to give confidence to our nuclear industry? Yet he constantly reiterates that cash limits must be maintained. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is quite inconsistent and that
    916
    he must relax the cash limits under which the electricity industry currently operates?
    Mr. Howell: No, I do not accept that, nor do I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is correctly repeating what I said earlier. Nor do I accept that I said that all increases in costs should automatically be passed on in prices. There must be a vigorous search for economies to meet part of the rise in costs. It may be that some rises have to be passed on but I do not accept the doctrine that it is simply a question of passing on all increases in costs in increased prices to the consumer.

    Gas Corporation (Liability)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will introduce legislation to impose on the Gas Corporation an absolute liability in respect of natural gas explosions causing death or injury to persons and damage to property.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Palmer: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the recent report of the British Safety Council on gas explosions which is highly critical of the somewhat careless way in which the Gas Corporation goes about its business? The report is also critical of the way in which the Gas Corporation treats those who are the unfortunate victims of these explosions. Does the hon. Gentleman think that imposing an absolute liability on the Corporation is a necessary discipline?
    Mr. Lamont: I am aware of the report of the British Safety Council and I am bound to say that it contains a number of factual errors and misleading statements. It fails to mention a number of relevant factors including the fact that gas engineers from the Department already carry out independent investigations into gas explosions where they consider that desirable. I should also point out that about two-thirds of all gas explosions occur on the customer side of the meter and two-thirds of that number are the result of deliberate malpractice. It is, therefore, difficult to impose an absolute liability on the Gas Corporation. I can see no reason why a liability should be imposed on the corporation which is different to the liability imposed on other industries.

    North Sea Oil (Pricing)
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for the pricing of North Sea oil.
    Mr. Gray: Producing companies have a right to the market price for their North Sea oil. The Government have no powers to control those prices but, in the national interest, they must on occasion urge companies to be timely and moderate with price increases.
    Mr. Spicer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no question of the Government influencing any producing company to sell oil at prices below world market prices?
    Mr. Gray: I can confirm that that is not the Government's intention. We have always urged companies to follow the price rather than to lead it. The prices of North Sea crude is relative to prices being obtained in Algeria, Libya, and such countries.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the enormous increase in the price of oil—now selling at about 34 dollars a barrel—has resulted in considerable windfall revenues to the Exchequer and to the oil companies? What are his proposals for advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise PRT in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Gray: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a question to the Treasury on that subject.
    Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend agree that world oil prices are now set by the largest oligopoly that we have ever seen—namely OPEC—and that this is not a freely negotiated world price but a price established by those nations?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct. In relation to OPEC we are subject principally to the rates of oil price in the countries that produce crude similar to that produced in the North Sea. It is interesting that even Saudi Arabia, which produces a much heavier crude, has not been able to control world oil prices. Sometimes people suggest that we should be able to control them but our production is only one-fifth of the production of Saudi Arabia.
    Mr. Benn: Quite apart from the case for taxing the oil profits, which are now astronomical as a result of factors for which the oil companies have contributed nothing—namely OPEC price increases—does not the fact that North Sea oil can now be sold at roughly five times its cost of production indicate that the Government have a clear duty to retain the ownership of the oil? That would mean that 100 per cent. of that excess profit accrues to the British people through the Treasury. Does not the increase in the OPEC oil price make it absolutely vital that every barrel of oil owned by BNOC is retained by the Government since it is an asset that is appreciating more rapidly than any other asset in cur reserves?
    Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman always had difficulty in separating State ownership from British ownership. The two are not necessarily the same. As far as future investment in North Sea oil is concerned, the Government have tried to create a climate which will encourage future investment there and this has been achieved. Already there are substantial signs to that effect.

    European Community (Ministerial Meetings)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what further discussions he plans to hold in the near future with his EEC opposite numbers on the development of a comprehensive Community energy policy.
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he expects to meet the EEC Council of Energy Ministers.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.
    Mr. David Howell: The Council of EEC Energy Ministers meets regularly to review and develop the Community's Energy policy. This process will continue at the next meeting of the Energy Council which I expect to be arranged during the next few weeks.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the only EEC oil-producing country, we have a splendid opportunity

    919
    to propose a positive Community energy policy? Does he accept that this would involve various complicated aspects, but would include the possibility of using EEC funds for energy products, new energy developments and even nuclear energy in the long term, in response to our positive proposals to create a comprehensive policy which will help non-oil countries in the EEC and which will also establish our authority in that sphere?
    Mr. Howell: The Government are always ready to consider constructive projects for an EEC energy policy. Britain is Europe's largest energy producer and one of Europe's leading energy investors. We already make a major contribution through our existing national programmes to the development of the EEC energy resource. Perhaps more recognition of what we are already doing should be given by other EEC countries.
    Mr. Hannam: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we supply a large amount of oil to Europe and that it amounts to about 30 per cent. of our total oil exports?
    Mr. Howell: That is correct.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend expect that at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers there will be a discussion about an expansion of the Community programme into alternative sources of energy? Does he agree that that is rather urgent?
    Mr. Howell: It is important. A number of national and EEC programmes are being pursued. I do not yet know whether they will appear on the agenda. If they do, we shall approach them constructively.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman take cautionary note of the lack of success of the common fisheries policy? Does he agree that if we supply the same amount of oil as we supplied fish and have the same degree of success we shall be closing down our oilfields as fast as our fishing ports?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's emphasis on caution is wise.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

    Accommodation
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider the establishment of a Select Committee to inquire specifically into the allocation and availability of accommodation for hon. Members and others in the Palace of Westminster.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No, Sir. These matters are already dealt with by the Services Committee and I do not think that it would be helpful to set up a special committee of the kind that the hon. Member proposes.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has not been an updated investigation of this matter since that carried out by Dick Stokes in the early 1950s? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords has an undue proportion of the accommodation available in the Houses of Parliament and that that must be put right? The accommodation problem of hon. Members is quite intolerable and getting steadily worse.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Palace of Westminster houses a hi-cameral legislature. We must accept that fact. I am afraid that the only long-term and satisfactory solution to the problems of accommodation of hon. Members is to have a new building. However, in the present financial circumstances I am afraid that we are unlikely to make rapid progress in that direction.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend able to say what is the latest position on the proposal to give proper, limited and sensible access to European Members? This saga is already beginning to make "The Mousetrap" look like a short run.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: This matter has been considered by the Services Committee which will publish its report on Thursday.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a tour of inspection of hon. Members' accommodation in the Palace to inform himself of

    921
    the deplorable condition in which his colleagues have to work? Perhaps some of his colleagues on the Government Front Bench do not work in such conditions and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not realise quite how bad things are.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did that when I was first appointed Leader of the House. Long before I was appointed to that exalted position I was a Back Bencher and experienced at first hand the difficulties now being experienced by other hon. Members.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Since the Leader of the House has turned down the idea of a Select Committee inquiry and my idea of having an independent, external inquiry by a company outside the House of Commons, what is he planning to do to resolve our difficulties? Does he understand that when the Division Bell rings, hon. Members from both sides sometimes have to sprint to the House to vote? Is that fair?
    Mr. Alan Clark: It will do the hon. Member good.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know whether it is fair but certainly it is not desirable. I do not believe that we shall make progress by conducting more inquiries into a situation the basic details of which are well known.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Take the accommodation from along the Corridor.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. This is a bicameral legislature. Members of the other place have their rights and we must respect them. The question of individual hon. Members' accommodation is dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). My experience is that they do their best to help hon. Members in all possible ways. I congratulate them on their work.

    Facilities
    Mr. Spearingasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement concerning facilities that may be granted in the Palace of Westminster to categories of persons who are not hon. Members of Parliament to assist them in that office.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Facilities are granted only to people whose functions have a direct connection with the work of the House or its Members.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for that statement of principle. Can the Leader of the House assure us that that admirable principle will not be extended in the report which is to be published on Thursday? If, by chance, it is, does he agree that that will represent a constitutional break, even if the details appear to be slight?
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot anticipate the publication of the report of the Services Committee. It would be improper for me so to do. Knowing the hon. Member's keen interest in these matters I chose my words carefully. The words were particularly carefully chosen in view of who was asking the question.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY SERVICES
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the present co-ordination of Government publicity services.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Angus Maude): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent events, such as the ballot by the steel workers, indicate that the Government's policies are beginning to get through to the public? Does he agree that there is a new air of realism among the public as a whole?
    Mr. Maude: I certainly agree that there is a new air of realism in the country. Events in recent weeks, including the decisions by the South Wales miners, the BL workers and the workers in the private steel industry, as well as yesterday's decision by those who voted in the British Steel Corporation ballot, are indications of greater realism on the shop floor.
    Mr. Heller: Has the right hon. Gentleman read reports in the Financial Times of bleating about communications in Conservative Party committees? Is it not true that whenever Governments get into trouble—and all Governments seem to get into trouble at certain stages—all

    923
    Back Benchers bleat that communications are not right?
    Mr. Maude: Yes, Sir. Of course it is true that there are always people who think that it is within the power of those who deal with communications to make people like temporary sacrifices which are necessary but not likeable.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary for the Prime Minister to be able to explain to the country the effects of her policies in non-partisan terms? What convention exists to allow a Prime Minister to have a fireside chat with the nation without inviting the right to reply from the Leader of the Opposition, who would simply use such an occasion to make party political points?
    Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has several opportunities, of which she will no doubt take advantage, to speak to the people. A leader of a party always has the vehicle of a party political broadcast.
    Mr. James Lamond: Since the Paymaster General is so satisfied with his work of publicising the Tory Party's policy can he tell us that he is eagerly looking forward to an increase in the Tory majority at Southend on Thursday?
    Mr. Maude: My experience is that it is always unwise to forecast by-election results. In particular, it is unwise to forecast that Government majorities will fall as much as Opposition Members like to believe.

    PRESS (MEETINGS)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Paymaster General when he expects next to meet representatives of the press.
    Mr. Maude: I frequently meet individual members of the press at their own request. These are generally arranged at short notice. I have no immediate engagements in my diary.
    Mr. Winnick: If the right hon. Gentleman does not do more to improve the Government's image—and we realise the obvious difficulties in that task—is it not possible that he will be publicly rebuked and humiliated by the Prime Minister, or simply sacked?
    Mr. Maude: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is not Governments' images that matter but whether their policies will work. I am entirely confident that the policies of this Government will work.
    Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the BBC or the ITA about the suggestion that they should be asked to postpone or ban broadcasting the Olympic Games? Does he recognise that if any such proposal were made it would set a dangerous precedent? Can he, therefore, give the House an assurance that no such action is contemplated by the Government?
    Mr. Maude: No, Sir. That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. David Steel: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets representatives of the press will be explain his extraordinary decree that no Ministers will be allowed to participate in television or radio broadcasts with members of other parties to discuss their policies? Is he so lacking in confidence in his colleagues that they may appear only in prepackaged form and may not be open to cross-examination?
    Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman is, as so often, ill-informed. I have, of course, never made any such decree, nor am I authorised to do so. It has been the practice of successive Governments to give giudance to Ministers on their participation in television and radio programmes. I have written to my colleagues recently merely to clarify the existing guidelines.

SECOND ADJOURNMENT DEBATES
Mr. Speaker: On Thursday last the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) raised a point of order with me about second Adjournment debates. I said that. I would make a brief statement when I had looked at the matter again. I have decided that the policy of firstcome-first-served is the only fair one for the House to pursue, but in order to avoid any difficulties, the first hon. Member whose name comes in, even if at that point he has not been able to get a

925
Minister to be ready to reply, will still be first if he secures the agreement of a Minister in the course of the day before it is time for the second debate to take place.
Mr. Foot: Thank you for the ruling that you have given, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it will greatly assist the House and will ensure that there will be no recurrence of what happened last week. I think that that is a guarantee to Back Benchers in all parts of the House, and we are most grateful to you for it.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A problem arises of which I think the House should be aware. If an hon. Member seeks to raise a second Adjournment debate on what one might call a hybrid subject—that is to say, small businesses and hotels, small businesses and agriculture, or small businesses and education—it presents a certain amount of difficulty for Ministers in discovering to which aspect they are meant to reply.
Mr. Speaker: Under the ruling that I have just given Ministers will probably have all day to decide which one of them is to reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, upon the first motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Pym being made, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question upon that motion and upon the remaining Questions which, under Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), he is required to put at Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Cope.]
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes, but it should be made well aware of the nature of the business motion. I understand its purpose to be to enable all outstanding Votes to be taken on the nod at 7 o'clock. As I further understand it, the essential element of the Vote to be taken is the Spring Supplementary Estimate, amounting to no less than £835 million of additional public expenditure, the equivalent of the entire public sector borrowing requirement of only a few years back.
The House should pause for a moment before it approves a business motion that
926
is designed to ensure that there is no opportunity to discuss this massive increase in public expenditure.
I make no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House because it was the House that decided, in its wisdom or otherwise, that this procedure should be followed and that Votes of this kind should be taken on the nod. It is doubly a matter for concern on this occasion because wrapped up within the total Spring Supplementary Estimate of £835 million is provision for £70 million to be paid to two Departments—the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence—to compensate them for overspending their current cash limits.
At a time when cash limits are to play a major part—rightly so—in the control of public expenditure the House should pause before approving, without a moment's discussion or explanation, a motion that is designed to compensate those two Departments for what, on the face of it, would appear to be somewhat lax housekeeping, to put it mildly.
In one case—admittedly, it is not the most important in financial terms—under the Scottish Office Vote for law and order, Class IX, Vote 8, the House approved a cash limit increase less than a month ago. It is now being asked to provide another £2 million because, apparently, the Scottish Office is not even capable of keeping within that cash limit approved a month ago. That seems hard to defend.
The other items which deeply concern me in the matter of cash limits are that under Class I, Vote 1, on the pay of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, the cash limit is up by £10 million over and above the cash limit approved by the House; the amount under Class I, Vote 2 on defence procurement, is up by £35 million; under Class I, Vote 4, on defence accommodation and services, the sum is up by £19 million; and in respect of the Scottish Office under Class VI, Vote 1, dealing with Scottish roads, the sum is up by £4·5 million. All those sums are over and above the cash limits approved by the House.
There is one other case that I hesitate to mention, and that is the Queen's Remembrancer, who has apparently managed to belie his name by overspending his cash limit by £87,000. However,

927
I think that we may pass that over in a decent silence. The rest of that £70 million should be a matter of real concern to the House if it believes that we have a duty to scrutinise and to try to control public expenditure on behalf of our constituents.
When I raised these matters during questions on the Business Statement last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House very fairly pointed out that it was open to the Opposition to make the Votes the subject of a debate today. They have not done so. It would be out of character for a party that, over so many years, has shown almost a contempt for the principles of good housekeeping now to concern itself with the overspending of cash limits. It has not done so, and the House should therefore be alerted to the fact that should we agree to this motion no opportunity will arise to discuss what we are being asked to approve in the name of our constituents.
My right hon. Friend also pointed out quite fairly that it would be in order to debate these matters in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, on Wednesday. However, I believe, although I am open to correction by my right hon. Friend, that it would not be practicable or permissible under the rules of order for an hon. Member to seek to debate on that Bill five separate Votes that are in excess of cash limits and that relates to two different Departments. Furthermore—and this is even more fundamental—if the House approves these Votes at 7 o'clock tonight the expenditure will already have been approved and on Wednesday we should be arguing about the matter after the horse had bolted.
I said at the outset that I made no criticism of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the manner in which these matters are placed before the House, since this was the way in which the House decided that they should be dealt with, but in my view it is high time that the Procedure Committee looked into these matters again. When we are supposed to be observing stringent control of public expenditure it is not good enough for the House to be asked to approve on the nod Supplementary Estimates running into hundreds—and shortly, no doubt, thousands—of millions of pounds.
I shall not myself seek to divide the House against the motion, since I appre-
928
ciate that it is for the convenience of the House today that it be approved so that the debate may proceed between 7 and 11.30 o'clock this evening, but I consider that in these matters we must have regard also to the convenience and interests of those who sent us here, and the procedure that Parliament has here adopted does not seem to me adequately to reflect the concern that we should have for those whom we represent in the House and who pay the taxes to sustain public expenditure.
Mr. English: I support the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) in the basis of what he has said, although he perhaps forgets that some of us who are now on the Opposition Benches opposed the way in which these Estimates went through on the nod when our own party was in government. I think that he forgot that I, at least, could claim to be more consistent than he in that respect. However, I support him in the sense that he has a point. We must oppose the motion, because our procedures are quite archaic in this respect.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said that later this week we shall have an opportunity to debate this issue on the Consolidated Fund Bill. He was, of course, quite correct. What he did not say was that we should have no opportunity to vote on it. In other words, he was giving the classic Government answer—"So long as you let us overspend, we do not mind how much you talk about it. We do not mind what you say, but you must never vote against it".
We are not allowed to propose expenditure—under the traditions of the British constitution only the Government may propose an increase in expenditure—but under the basic traditions of our constitution we are, in theory, allowed to vote against it.
What will happen in practice? The Consolidated Fund Bill, as it is called, will be debated all night on various issues, raised by various hon. Members, but not one of them will be allowed to come to a vote. The Committee stage will follow, and the only legitimate amendment that may be moved is one to delete the word "may"—that the Government may spend the money. In no circumstances may one move an amendment relating even to

929
a matter discussed, or enabling the House to vote upon a single pound of expenditure.
The supposed reason for that is that Supply resolutions such as those on the Order Paper today will have already passed the House, but by a tradition now over a century old Supply days are days when the Opposition Front Bench chooses the subject of debate. The hon. Gentleman did not say that. He said "the Opposition", but it is the Opposition Front Bench—his former Front Bench, or my present Front Bench—that chooses the subject of debate, and not the Opposition as such.
Since we give press conferences about these things, I see no reason for not saying that this matter was raised in the private meeting of my party. The Opposition Front Bench chooses the subject for debate. The subjects chosen are very reasonable ones, but the result is that hardly ever does the Opposition Front Bench choose such a subject as deleting £10 million, or whatever it may be. The subjects chosen by every Front Bench, of whichever party, are much more politically sexy, much more newsworthy and more headline-raising.
The result is that under our present procedure no Supply resolution is ever debated. It can be voted upon, under the procedure initiated by the hon. Member for Knutsford, but it cannot be discussed. Someone has to put down an objection even in order to have a vote, and that is on the Order Paper today as a result of what has been done by the hon. Gentleman. Whether the hon. Gentleman is here or not is irrelevant. He knows that it can be done by others on his behalf if he initiates the procedure.
There appears on the Order Paper notice of objection by the hon. Member for Knutsford. That enables us to vote later this day. But the business motion precludes us from having any discussion on these Estimates. What is needed, as the hon. Member said, is the setting up of the Procedure Committee again to consider these matters. Last Session the Procedure Committee dealt with the non-financial aspects of House procedure. It intended to go on to the financial aspects, and, among other things, the last one suggested that the Select Committees that
930
we have now set up should consider the Estimates.
How can the Select Committees consider these Estimates? They were put to the Committees only about 10 days ago. What a fine length of time for Committees of the House to consider them. I doubt that the Estimates have yet been circulated to some of the Committees. I think that they have been circulated to a few, but there has hardly been time for anyone to consider these matters.
Plainly, we must initiate a proper procedure in Committee and on the Floor of the House for consideration of these matters. We cannot go to our constituents and say "You will lose your old-age pension, your unemployment benefit, your Health Service facilities, or this, that, or the other"—whatever it may be—"because of cash limits" and at the same time say that some Departments are exempt. I do not mind whether it is the Conservative Party allowing the Ministry of Defence to be exempt or people on my side who might say that social security should be exempt. If we are to have a principle, we cannot allow one Department of State to get away with it while all the other recipients of State beneficence suffer. We cannot say that some will suffer but others will get away with it.
Above all, we ought not to say, as this Government are now saying, that cash limits apply to everybody except the Ministry of Defence and a few others and that no one will ever be allowed to discuss that exception.
Mr. Speaker: May I make just one correction? It is possible for the House to vote on every one of these motions without anyone putting his name to a notice of objection.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I support the views just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). The business motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is entirely in order, and it happens to conform with the procedures used in recent years for dealing with the Spring Supplementary Estimates, but I hope that that does not confer upon those procedures any measure of acceptability, since I believe

931
an issue of principle to be involved, that issue of principle being the method by which the legislature may more effectively control the spending power of the Executive.
Over the years, the weapons in the hands of the legislature to deal with the overspending of the Executive have grown very rusty. The motion today emphasises that, because, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman said, the House is being asked to vote on the nod or to have Divisions at 7 o'clock on a total of about £900 million of extra expenditure. In my view, before the House is asked to make a decision of that sort the Ministers responsible for the necessary extra expenditure should in some way be called to account by the House. I said this in the last Parliament as well.
A large sum of money is involved. What are the ways open to us to proceed? The last Procedure Committee discussed various methods. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West said, we were about to examine the procedure for financial Bills and legislation when the election intervened and we could not proceed further.
I submit that the time is now right for us to look again at our procedures for dealing with financial legislation concerning Estimates. This sort of thing should not happen. We are being asked to vote tonight on principle and then, two days later, on Wednesday, we are to be given the priceless opportunity to debate the details of this expenditure. If that procedure had been put to the House in that way at any time I am certain that it would not have been approved by the House.
The debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, while not valueless—they have some value, in that hon. Members may raise various matters—are not valuable, in that they cannot lead to any conclusion or decision. To have 18 hours of debate on decisions that have been taken tonight by the House at 7 o'clock is really like throwing a bone to a dog to stop it barking.
I hope that the House will develop a different way of dealing with such matters. There are now Select Committees shadowing each Department. There is no reason why those Committees should not be encouraged, or invited, to take evidence on the Estimates. I am referring not
932
only to this year but to future years, when the matter will arise again.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sympathetic to the notion that these matters should be considered by the Select Committees. However, that does not invalidate my point that those Select Committees would usually examine these matters after the money had been voted by Parliament, and that is what concerns me.
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Select Committee should consider the Estimates before they return to the House. We could move towards a system in which a Select Committee reports back to the House before a decision is taken. That would be a fundamental change in our procedure, which could not come about without further examination by the Procedure Committee, which as not yet been established. There has not been a Procedure Committee for the past nine months.
As this Parliament develops there will be several matters arising, week by week, that involve procedural matters, of which this is by far the most important. I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, who said that another Procedure Committee should be established to which matters such as this could be referred, especially matters dealing with the handling of financial legislation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on raising this matter, very properly, in the House today. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as a sincere tribute and not as a bone cast to him to encourage him not to bark. It is quite right that Back Benchers should bark in the House and raise these matters. But it is not only Back Benchers who can debate these matters. As I pointed out last Thursday, had the Opposition chosen, on this Supply day—
Mr. English: The Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that footnote; I have often thought that on procedural matters the hon. Gentleman should sit on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps things would be different if he were to do so.
The Opposition Front Bench—to avoid another interruption—could have chosen to debate the matter today. I pointed out also that there was an opportunity to raise the matter next Wednesday on the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I agree that the present procedures are not entirely satisfactory. It is the prerogative of the House to grant or withold Supply. That is the foundation of the whole power of the House. At some point in the future that might be examined. I do not think that I can go further than that today.
Mr. Costain: Is it true to say that these matters are examined by the Public Accounts Committee at the present time?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. However, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford was that the House should examine these matters before they were voted.
I shall consider establishing a new Procedure Committee, but we have already an extremely important series of proposals from the last Procedure Committee, which we have not yet disposed of, although we have made good progress in the matter. The Select Com-
934
mittees that have been established are throwing up problems from day to day. A large amount of my time is spent in trying to sort out the difficulties raised and to help hon. Members in that respect. No doubt the request can be acceded to in due course.
I do not wish to delay the House any longer, as important matters have been set down by the Opposition for debate. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West referred to a previous event when he claimed some credit for having raised these matters on an Opposition Supply day. On that occasion the discussion on the points that he raised continued for so long that the Supply day was effectively lost and another had to be provided.
Mr. English rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall not give way. I expressed my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford not only for the effective way in which he raised these matters but for the economical way in which he put them. As the House wishes to debate housing and immigration, I shall sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, upon the first motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Pym being made, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question upon that motion and upon the remaining Questions which, under Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), he is required to put at Ten o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [13th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

HOUSING (GOVERNMENT POLICIES)
3.57 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the housing policies of Her Majesty's Government, which are making it more expensive to buy or rent a home than at any time in this country's history.
The debate is about the high cost of Conservativism—the price that a Tory Government requires to be paid by owner-occupiers, by council tenants and by tenants of private landlords. That price was not mentioned in last May's Conservative manifesto. Indeed, the Conservative Party posed, above all other things, as the friend of the owner-occupiers. By posing as their friend it won thousands of votes by literal deception.
The election is over, and the families who were deceived face the need to pay the highest mortgage rate in our history. In addition to that burden, we are about to see the biggest increase in council house rents in our history, and the tenants of private landlords can look forward simply to paying higher rents and enjoying less security of tenure.
The debate about a related housing subject—the virtual ending of council house building, and the damage being caused by the policies of the Secretary of State for the Environment to hundreds of improvement schemes—must wait for another day. However, we wish to discuss the housing investment programme statement made by the Secretary of State on 21 February, intentionally late and intentionally inadequate. The full debate on that subject will not take place today, but there is one aspect of his announcement that must be dealt with now, namely, the correction that he attempted to make—quite wrongly—between previous years of low council rents and the recent reductions in council house building.
936
The implication of that statement was quite clear—that a high rents policy would enable councils to meet housing needs more easily. Whatever the Government's reason for forcing up council house rents it is not their intention to increase council house building. The Secretary of State's statement about meeting the needs and problems that have become increasingly specific and increasingly local is, quite frankly, no more than a bad joke. In most of the areas where the local and specific needs are greatest the Government have ended council house building altogether.
In town after town the housing investment programme allocation, which is supposed to finance new building, mortgages and investment programmes, will barely cover the cost of work that was started this year or last year, and, because of its size and its scope must be paid for next year and the year after.
I wish to give three examples of the intolerable situation that the Government have wilfully created, although there are many more authorities who are placed in that same intolerable position.
My first example is the city of Sheffield. After meeting obligations on outstanding contracts, Sheffield will be left with a little in excess of £500,000 in its housing investment programme allocation for next year. That is enough to build about 40 new houses in Sheffield in 1980–81.
The city of Bristol needed £40 million to meet its outstanding commitments on work already begun. It was allocated £12 million.
Camden has £45 million already committed to work in hand. It was allocated £44 million. In those boroughs, in and outside London, the net result of Conservative policy is no new housing at all. That is not surprising, since this year's housing investment allocation is 33·4 per cent. lower than last year's.
I hope that in passing I may explain to the Secretary of State how much we hope that we shall be spared nonsensical excuses about councils in previous years not using all their available funds. Next year local authorities are being offered 21 per cent. less than they will actually spend this year. It is a matter not of margins to allow for councils that do not

937
want to press forward but of literal reductions in the money available, comparing what the Government will give with what has recently been spent. It is a matter of wilfully reducing the numbers of council houses that are built and completed.
As well as this level of housing investment allocation bringing to an end council house building in areas that most need council house building, since that same sum is supposed to finance improvement and rehabilitation programmes and mortgage schemes, many of those will be wound up during 1980–81 because there will be no money to finance them.
It is no wonder that the Tory chairman of the Association of District Councils said that he regarded the proposals as very grim and that a substantial number of the nation's older houses would decline beyond the point of no return. That is part of the legacy that the Conservative Party will pass on to its successors—years in which the housing stock will deteriorate and in which the number of new houses for rent in the municipal sector will decline.
The net result of the Government's policy—their reductions in investment and their insistence on increases in rents—is that they are now offering council tenants the opportunity of getting much worse and paying much more, for as the quality of houses deteriorates their rents will continue to increase. This year the average increase in council rents will be about 28 per cent.—an average figure of between £1·80 and £2. I give three typical examples.
First, after the rate support grant announcement, the city of Birmingham decided to make increases of up to £3 on its rents—rents that now have an average value of £9·04. It also decided to extend its normal practice from a 48-week collection to a 52-week collection. It had planned an increase in rents of between 21 per cent. and 22 per cent.—an increase that it hoped would last for at least a year—but, as a result of the Secretary of State's statement, when he announced the housing investment programme allocations and his desire that rents should go up by a further 60p during the autumn the Conservative-controlled housing committee in Birmingham at its next meeting will have to discuss what additions it should make to an already substantial
938
rent increase of between 21 per cent. and 22 per cent.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To illuminate the debate, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of average earnings these new rents will be and how they compare with the figures for five years and 10 years ago?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes. The comparison is easy to make. The increase for which the Secretary of State is asking is 28 per cent. That 28 per cent. is substantially more than wage increases that have been enjoyed throughout the country. The net result of that simple arithmetical sum is that people will be paying a larger proportion of their net income in view of what has been decided this year.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He asked the right hon. Gentleman to compare it as a proportion of income five years and 10 years ago.
Mr. Hattersley: I cannot do it for either of those periods. However, I can make the comparison that is important for today's debate. It is a substantially increased proportion of income, comparing the period of the Labour Government before May 1979 and the period of the Conservative Government. The net result of the 28 per cent. increase is that the Secretary of State wants council house tenants to pay more of their income in rents. It is as simple and important as that.
In some areas, where local authorities have taken the Secretary of State's word even more literally, the increase will be even larger. The obvious example is Wandsworth, where rents are increasing by up to £4·50 a week—an increase of 34 per cent.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: What about the rates?
Mr. Hattersley: I thought that someone rather less perceptive than the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) would cry out "What about the rates?" Of course, Wandsworth has increased its rates less than most other boroughs, but it has increased its rents more than most

939
other boroughs. That means that Wandsworth has decided to place the burden imposed on it by the Secretary of State mostly at the expense of council house tenants.
I give another example—Southend, which is proposing an average increase of £1·41 in April. Conservative Members, who are so quick on the uptake this afternoon, will understand exactly what I mean when I say that having proposed an increase of £1·41 in April, to make absolutely sure it has announced another increase of £1·4l next autumn.
These increases are the direct and absolute responsibility of the Secretary of State. They are increases that council house tenants face at the same time as they are obliged to pay substantial increases in their rate bills. I have no doubt that as the day wears on the Secretary of State and others will tell us that the increases in rates, which are also borne by council house tenants, are generally and specifically the result of profligate Labour councils, but the facts are very different. The average increase for the country is now well over 25 per cent., and that is the direct result of the Secretary of State's rate support grant statement.
Many Tory authorities that are to impose increases of up to 30 per cent. will argue that there is no other option open to them. The Opposition will argue—I believe that as the months go on we shall be able to demonstrate—that where Labour authorities have imposed increases greater than that it is also true to say that there was no other option open to them if they wanted to preserve services—and they were right to want to preserve services.
Mr. Michael Latham: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the White Paper issued by the Labour Government, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), which stated that council rents must go up as a proportion of income?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes. I am not trying to argue that council rents should never increase. If the hon. Gentleman, who is always impatient in these debates, had waited for a moment, he would have heard that I had something to say about what the increases would be. For the moment, I content myself with making
940
the point that rent increases, like rate increases, are the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. They have been advocated by him, they have been enforced by his rate support grant policy, and no doubt they will soon be reinforced if his new subsidy scheme becomes law. If that happens the level of housing subsidies will be largely determined and no doubt manipulated by the Secretary of State, and councils will once more be allowed or encouraged—or, I suspect, obliged—to create surpluses on their housing revenue accounts.
I do not believe that anything better illustrates the differences between the parties than the Government's readoption of the old Rent Act idea of making a profit on council housing. Of course we expect rents to go up from time to time, but the idea that they should be pushed to a level far above economic necessity and that legislation should be passed by the House to allow substantial surpluses to be carried on housing revenue accounts, seems absolutely wrong. It is no more than a hidden tax on council tenants, similar to the hidden tax that gas consumers are paying. I believe that that demonstrates the deep disdain that the Tory Party has always felt, and apparently still feels towards council house tenants.
I do not pretend that private tenants have escaped the baleful effects of Tory policy. The Conservative Government offer them more frequent rent increases combined with decreased security of tenure. Since Southend interested Conservative Members, I might tell them that last Thursday, on my way to the scene of that by-election, I picked up a document that had been left in the train by an earlier commuter. It was a piece of paper—indeed, an advertisement—circulated by "Business and Residential Tenancies". It invited participants in a seminar the previous day, which was held at the Carlton Tower hotel. For £95, one could attend and enjoy both lunch and pre-lunch drinks.
The seminar was to teach participants, among other things,
"the extent to which security can be avoided and ways of defeating security and regaining possession."
It added that the principal afternoon session would be devoted to ways of maximising the advantage under the new Housing Bill. For £95, one got lunch,

941
accommodation and some tips on how to kick out one's tenants. That not only says something about the right hon. Gentleman's policy; it says something about the sort of society that his policy is creating.
Perhaps I should not be surprised—I am sure that my hon. Friends are not surprised—that the Conservative Party continues to be the friend of the private landlord and the enemy of council tenants. What has come to the country as much more of a shock is the Conservative Party's callous disregard for the interests of owner-occupiers. Before May, no one was promised more. Since May, no one has been more cynically betrayed. Owner-occupiers read the plaintive description in the Conservative manifesto of the problems of rising mortgages, and I suspect that they really believed the promise that the new Government would lighten their burden. In fact, thanks to Government policy, the burden is heavier than ever before. There has been a record increase in the mortgage interest rate, announced and implemented on 1 January—3·25 per cent.—which has resulted in a record level of mortgage interest of 15 per cent.
The consequent increase in payments demanded of many families has been disastrous for them. Let me remind the House what the increases are. A family with a £5,000 mortgage today pays £8·20 a month more than it did before the general election. A family with a £10,000 mortgage pays £16·40 more a month than it did before the general election. A family with a £15,000 mortgage pays £24·60 more a month than it did before the general election. Those figures are all net of tax relief. However, until May actual payments will be much higher, because the new tax codes are not to be calculated until then. As a result, the family with a £15,000 mortgage has since January been handing over an extra £36·75 each month.
For many families struggling to buy their homes increases of that sort represent near disaster. Certainly, for many young couples who are hoping to buy their first house the present level of employment makes owner-occupation literally beyond their reach.
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tam-worth): Will the right hon. Gentlman
942
take time to read this month's edition of "Building Society Affairs", which is distributed by the Building Societies Association? It has probably come through his post within the last two or three days. The first paragraph reads:
"Nevertheless, despite the options given by many building societies to extend loan periods and a general willingness of societies to help out in cases of hardship,"
—the hardship cases to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred—
"the majority of existing borrowers have freely decided to increase their repayments".
It goes on:
"The demand for new mortgages does not appear to have been much reduced by the higher mortgage rate."
Mr. Hattersley: Let me trump the hon. Gentleman's building societies' ace with my Nationwide trump. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has this week received a similar document from the Nationwide Building Society—a society that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, traditionally looks after borrowers who are perhaps struggling to maintain their mortgages, because of its co-operative associations, which go back to working-class roots over the last 70 years. In its bulletin the Nationwide says that one in three of its borrowers has experienced the problem that the hon. Gentleman has tried to minimise. These borrowers have been unable to pay the increased payments, and one in three has found it necessary to extend his mortgage beyond its normal life. That may not seem a terrible thing to the hon. Gentleman, but it does to me —that one-third of all the mortgage holders with one of the country's largest building societies now discover that their indebtedness has to he pushed forward into a period when they hoped that they would be free of mortgage repayments.
Mr. Michael Shersby rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way again. I have given way four times. I do not want to detain the House and to prevent a long speech from the Secretary of State.
The second example that I should like to give from the same bulletin concerns the plight of first-time buyers. The first-time buyer is now required to spend, on average, 24 per cent. of his net income in order to obtain a mortgage. That is the

943
largest amount of net income that first-time buyers have ever been forced to contribute towards their mortgages. It is even larger than the previous record of 22·5 per cent. which was endured during the dying months of the Administration of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
Conservative Members must understand that for young couples on the borderline of buying a house the idea of paying one week's income out of four simply towards mortgage repayments makes home ownership literally impossible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something which gives them some hope that in the not too distance future the situation will be improved.
I say that because on 26 November we debated that subject at some length. We dealt in detail, which I do not propose to do today, with the Prime Minister's false and foolish optimism about mortgage rates, expressed by her in June and July of 1979. When she expressed that false and foolish optimism she led the building societies to believe that the minimum lending rate was about to fall. During our last debate on this subject the Secretary of State explained what went wrong. In the light of the Prime Minister's summer confidence, he was not reckless enough to blame the problem on the inheritance from the previous Government. Instead, he offered two other reasons for the Government being blown off course. Neither was the public sector borrowing requirement, which we charitably must assume the Prime Minister understood when she made her false promises in June and July. The two reasons that he offered were the failure to collect VAT increases and telephone bills, and increases in American and European prime lending rates.
I take it that one of those problems will soon disappear—the collection of back tax, but I fear that the height of international lending rates will remain with us. When we debated this subject last time, the Secretary of State described how high hopes were dashed at No. 10. He said:
"it was very much the Government's hope—and my hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear—that it would be a short-term position. However,"
944
—he said, smiling at the House-
"it did not turn out to be short-term."— [Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 907.]
That discovery, which came as such a surprise to him, caused great distress to the leader writers of The Daily Telegraph. They said:
"Mrs. Thatcher aptly described the Conservatives as the home owners party. Sustained high mortgage interest rates could easily affect that natural affinity".
I have rarely had the opportunity of congratulating The Daily Telegraph on its perception, but on Thursday, after Southend, I look forward to doing so.
In order that the Secretary of State may make a belated attempt to restore his position as the home owner's friend, I hope that he will answer three questions about the long and medium-term prospects for mortgages in this country. I shall certainly not ask him any of the silly questions about when MLR is likely to be reduced that he used to ask from the Opposition Front Bench. That is not a sensible question to put to a Minister. I hope that he will attempt to answer seriously and directly the three questions that I wish to put to him, rather than taking refuge, in his usual way, in an official text, punctuated with Oxford Union abuse.
First, does the Secretary of State share my view that mortgage holders ought to brace themselves for a long period of high repayments, and that while present international financial climates and domestic fiscal policies persist mortgage holders ought to be prepared to continue paying at the present uniquely high rate, or at about that rate?
Secondly, what can the Secretary of State tell us about the fundamental change that is being considered in building society policy—the idea that even when minimum lending rate falls there may not be matching reductions in the mortgage lending rate? That is part of the result of the building societies' need to recoup losses that they made when the Government pretended that help was at hand in the summer. But that is only part of the reason. I notice that hon. Gentlemen behind the Secretary of State are nodding. If MLR comes down, that is no reason to assume that building societies will move in the same direction.

945
The Secretary of State must have discussed this with the building societies. He has a duty to tell the House what those discussions revealed.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State answer in a sensible way—he has signally failed to do so in the past—my question about the effect of council house sales on the prospects for private mortgages? I put it to him in this way: the clear policy of the Government is to finance as many council house sales as possible out of private building society funds; indeed, a letter on that subject has been sent from Conservative Central Office to Conservative councils telling them whenever possible to raise the money for council house sales from the building societies.
If a large number of council house tenants apply to the building societies, there can be only two possible consequences. The first is that fewer mortgage demands, proportionately, will be met. Already only seven out of every eight applicants receive a mortgage. If the demand is suddenly increased, obviously one possibility is for a smaller proportion of demands to receive affirmative answers.
The alternative is for the building societies to increase their interest rates in order to attract new lending, so that they can finance new borrowing. The building societies fear that they will be forced into an unnecessary increase, in current terms, in their lending rates to attract the new capital to meet the demands of council house sales. Again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must have discussed this with the building societies. Again I say that he has a duty to tell the House the outcome of those discussions.
My fear is that the Secretary of State will not do so. Instead, he will take his usual refuge in insisting that all these difficulties are necessary and that all these hardships have to be endured to create the Conservative economic Eldorado in which even few of his own Back Benchers now believe. In 10 months, the public expenditure cuts, the increase in rents and the record mortgage rates have produced a reduction in industrial investment, a deterioration in the balance of payments,
946
and a doubling of the inflation rate. The economic policy that is supposed to justify the hardship that has been caused in Great Britain, has not improved things at all. It has simply resulted in the British economy, the The Economist put it this week, "sliding into recession".
The cause of that unhappy condition, and the cause of the suffering facing tenants and owner-occupiers alike, is the same. It is the doctrinaire incompetence of the Government. The country knows it, even if the Secretary of State does not. We propose to vote in defence of the country's interest tonight.
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House welcomes the measures that the Government are taking to bring public expenditure on housing into line with what the country can afford, to encourage the release of more privately rented accommodation, and to extend home ownership to a greater number of people than ever before.".
There is a single word which illustrates the profound difference between the attitude of the Government in their first year and the approach of the Labour Government in their last desperate years. It is the word "responsibility".
It is the task of the Government to produce policies which are essential to the regeneration of the economy, and no one can seriously question that this involves lower levels of public expenditure. It is in this context that I have asked local government to play its part. The only result of the continued ignoring of economic reality is a decline that threatens to become irreversible in this country. It makes no sense to try to debate housing costs, whether for rented homes or purchased homes, outside the economic context.
Our debate today is not only about housing and public expenditure; it is also about the opportunist rejection of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of policies which at one stage he loyally espoused when the Government of whom he was then a member found themselves compelled to pursue.

947
Today the right hon. Gentleman attacks the Government for reducing public expenditure by increasing rents in the public sector and for reducing public sector building. It is as though all those years of experience—and particularly 1976—might never have been. But the record of what he did, what he said and what he voted for is clear. His words are clearly recorded. He could not have set out the position more clearly when he said:
"An essential element in the programme for economic recovery is, and must be, a reduction in some element of public expenditure … I am sure that the people whom my hon. Friend and I represent have much to gain from the progress of economic recovery, and this is all part of the plan for bringing that about"— [Official Report, 11 October 1976; Vol. 917. c. 5.]
What changed? I have asked the right hon. Gentleman that question from the Dispatch Box on a previous occasion. He gave no answer, of course, but everyone knows the answer. The Labour Party is back in opposition. It is out of power and it is once again trying to offer wholly unrealistic options to the country. It is now oblivious of the national interest, and no one in this House will be deceived for one instant by the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to put before the House.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is making much play of the fact that the Government intend to reduce public expenditure on housing. Is it not a fact that if, as a result of his Government's policy, a large number of council houses are sold, tax relief on mortgage interest on each of those houses will have to be paid? It will mean that the Government will incur hundreds of millions of pounds a year extra in tax relief, which is public expenditure.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know full well that the consequence of selling a council house is to attract from the individual concerned a very substantial increase in the amount that he pays towards his housing costs, because he is attracted by the benefits of home ownership.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the burden of tax relief increases every time that the house
948
is sold, and that in the future we shall be generating a constantly escalating level of public expenditure or loss of public income through increased tax relief year after year into the future, for as long as the house lasts?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will be fully aware of the benefits which come from encouraging people to buy and maintain their own homes without the subsidies from the public Exchequer of the sort that we characterise in the public sector. The hon. Member will be fully aware that there is an overwhelming demand among people in this country to own their own homes. I do not see what purpose he achieves by constantly suggesting that we should frustrate that demand in the way that his policies would achieve.
The House, rather than following the line of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, would be wise to stick with his words of 1976, which were that an essential element of economic recovery must be the reduction of public spending. The excessive plans for public spending that we inherited are one of the causes of the present level of interest rates in our economy. Building society rates cannot be insulated from the rest of the economy. Of course no one welcomes a mortgage interest rate of 15 per cent., but that rate becomes inevitable when general interest rates are at their present level. As we all know, building societies have to offer a competitive rate of interest for savings. Without those savings there would be no mortgages.
The previous Government were responsible for incurring £40 billion of extra debt during their period of office. Consequently, approximately half the current level of public sector deficit has to go to pay the interest charges on the dais incurred by the previous Government. That makes the scale of the inheritance of the present Government more clearly understood.
In 1976, having tried in their early years to pursue precisely the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Labour Government were stopped in their tracks because they ran out of credit. But now that they are in opposition they try to reverse history and persuade people that the economic facts are other than they themselves discovered them to have been.

949
High interest rates are welcome to no one, but they follow from the determination of the Government to control the money supply and from the level of Government borrowing. They reflect the rising world price of money. When it became clear last autumn that monetary growth was excessive, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hesitate to make the adjustment that was necessary. It was the only responsible option in an international context.
Already in Italy prime interest rates are 20 per cent. The West German Lombard rate has doubled to 8½ per cent. in the last year. In the same period French one-month discount rates have risen by more than half to 12⅜ per cent. In the United States prime interest rates are now approaching 18 per cent. We in Britain cannot ignore these trends. Everyone knows that our money markets are world markets and it serves no purpose for the right hon. Gentleman to imply that somehow or other we can isolate ourselves from these trends. The only way in which interest rates will fall is when our policies succeed in reducing the demand for money and credit, and the upward pressures on prices abate. There is no half-way house for this country. As inflation comes down through a balance of fiscal and interest rate policies and controlled public expenditure, so, too, will interest rates.
But the House will notice a curious contradiction in the right-hon. Gentleman's position. He attacks the present level of interest charges as they affect mortgages. He attacks the cost of owning a home. What he does not explain is that the single most consistent thing that he personally has done since the election is to call for higher levels of Government expenditure, which means more borrowing and therefore higher interest rates on the one hand, whilst on the other he is urging local government to push up its spending and increase its rates, thus adding to the cost of home ownership.
As the House listened to the right hon. Gentleman, did it bear in mind that he goes up and down the country with that single-minded purpose? It was in Leicester, last November, that he said to local government representatives:
950
"We believe in public spending and we support and will restore public expenditure to its proper level."
To spend more in current circumstances would mean more borrowing by the public sector, which would mean more interest rate increases, a further squeeze on the capacity of the private sector to invest, and thus rising unemployment.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Heseltine: The higher interest rates in the economy would lead to yet higher mortgage rates for home owners. So the right hon. Gentleman's policies would, inevitably, hit even harder the group for whom he today pretends to care. He knows—because he went through precisely this dilemma as a Minister of the Crown—that that is the reality. He recognised it while in office. It is only in opposition that he seeks to pretend that it is otherwise.
I turn now to one of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made at some length, and that is rents in the public sector. The same basic economic premises apply, but perhaps with an additional problem, which is the distortion specifically imported by the rent subsidy policies of the previous Government.
Perhaps I can help by giving some of the figures which were requested by some of my hon. Friends but which the right hon. Gentleman conveniently did not have available. In real terms, housing subsidies for local authority housing more than doubled between 1973–1974 and 1978–1979, from £628 million to £1,373 million. Between 1974–1975 and 1978–1979 investment in capital spending was halved from £4·2 billion to £2·15 billion. The right hon. Gentleman was not the Minister responsible at the time, but he is implying that my policies have, in some way, changed direction. What he has not taken on board is that under the previous Government the rates of new capital expenditure in local authority housing fell year after year, and they fell, on average, over four years, by broadly the figure by which I shall be responsible for reducing them next year. So in a five-year context, the Labour Government will have been responsible for a reduction four times as large as I shall be responsible for next year. That is the fact of the matter and if the right hon.

951
Gentleman has not understood the consequences of what his Government did he has no right to come to the House and make the kind of speech he just made.
Not only that, but by the time the Labour Party left office the cost of subsidising every new council house built was running at approximately £30 per week, on average. That meant that new building had become so expensive that capital programmes were destroyed whilst the subsidy system distributed relief in an often random and unnecessary form to some of those living in council housing. So, over the year, the programmes were slashed at an annual rate of about 20 per cent.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: Whilst there is some substance in what the Secretary of State is saying —I am the first one to admit it, otherwise I should not have argued against it from the Opposition Benches—he knows that the National Federation of Building Trades Employers is utterly disgusted with this Government's policy and members of that organisation perhaps helped to get the Conservatives into office. That organisation fears that this Government's policy towards housing will create a far worse situation in the building industry than there ever was under the Labour Government.
Mr. Heseltine: It is not for me to explain the views of the building employers, but the fact is that, given a choice between the policies of this Government and those of the previous Government, they would support the policies of this Government. I can think of one lot of policies only which the building employers would dislike more than the policies of the previous Government and that is the sort of policies that the hon. Member would operate if he had the chance.
For blatantly political reasons, the Labour Government refused to follow policies which they knew made economic sense. They allowed the rent subsidies to rise and gave in to the pressures to keep down rents to levels which all but a small group within the Labour Party recognised were unreasonably and unacceptably low.
The consequence of that short-term and expedient policy was to destroy the
952
public sector housing programme, as both Labour and Conservative-controlled councils added up the bills and discovered that the price of the policies of the previous Government was too high to pay.
Therefore, it falls once again to this Government to try to restore responsibility and common sense to housing policy. Once again, as we have seen so often in the past, free of office the Labour Party condemns this Government for policies which, in its more honest moments in government, it knew and said were the policies that should be pursued.
Perhaps we could look more closely at rents. The Labour Green Paper on housing policy of June 1977 said:
"The Government consider that over a run of years rents should rise broadly in line with money income."
The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, in The Guardian that this was the most reassuring news for tenants for a long time. With any likely outturn of earnings this year the net effect of the rent guidelines that I have announced is to bring rents back by the end of 1980 to the percentage of average earnings prevailing when that Green Paper was published by the last Labour Government. What I have done is to announce policies which were advocated by the Labour Government, who lacked the courage to carry them out.
Far from rents being kept in line with earnings, they dropped steadily year by year. As subsidies rose, rents dropped until by 1979–80 they were only 6·4 per cent. of income.
Mr. Frank Allaun: So they should be.
Mr. Hesekine: We understand the views of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) as long as he understands that the views he expresses have nothing to do with the views that his own Secretary of State supported when he was in office.
Of course the Labour Government in power thought at the time that they were buying credit. In reality, they were steadily destroying the credibility of much of their public sector housing programme. Back in 1976 that oft-lonely voice of reason in Labour Party policies—though

953
now much maligned as history is rewritten—the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said:
"I believe that we are right to plan in the longer term for the proportion of housing costs to be borne by rents to grow from 43 per cent. in 1976–77 to 50 per cent. by 1980."—[Official Report, 10 March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 453]
What was the result? By 1979 rents, as defined by the then Chief Secretary, had actually dropped to 41 per cent. of costs. The Labour Government knew what should be done. They put forward and defended responsible policies up to the point where they were actually expected to implement them, and then for short electoral reasons they ran away.
Under a Labour Government council rents rose by 55 per cent. and earnings rose by more than 85 per cent. That fact speaks for itself. It led to the collapse of public sector housing in this country.
The same story is to be found, but over an even longer period, in the private rented sector. Too many rents are uneconomic and owners have responded exactly as one would expect. Premises have fallen into disrepair—
Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way. I have given way four times already and this is only a short debate. As I was saying, premises have fallen into disrepair, and wherever possible landlords have sold up when they have had the opportunity. As a consequence, rented accommodation has become scarcer and scarcer. The demand in this sector now greatly exceeds the supply.
Mr. Jack Straw rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry; I have tried to make the point clear. I usually give way; if I did so it would mean that I would spend a longer time at the Dispatch Box, and this is only a short debate.
The position in the private rented sector is hardly surprising. Controlled rents have been basically unchanged since 1956—they average about £1 a week. In the rent-regulated sector, rents have risen by just over 100 per cent. Yet earnings and repair costs over the same time have risen by about two and a half times as much. In 1970 fair rents produced an
954
estimated net yield of about 7 per cent. By 1980 it was down to 3 per cent. The House cannot run away from the consequences of those figures. The only thing that will happen is that the supply of accommodation in the private and the public sector will decline and the people who will suffer most will be those who are looking for homes.
No responsible Government can ignore these facts. The private rented sector could and should play a major role in meeting housing needs, especially for the young, the single and the mobile.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way to the hon. Member, and I must ask him to try to understand the reasons why I cannot. The facts are very thin on the ground—
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he does not intend to give way. This is only a short debate and hon. Members are only wasting time.
Mr. Heseltine: Therefore, we are taking sensible measures. The Housing Bill will end the system of controlled rents and will replace it by fair rents. Tenants will be protected by rent allowances and by supplementary benefits. In the regulated sector the three-year period for fair rent revision will be reduced to two years and phasing will be in two cequal stages, rather than three. The changes will be over a three-year period. Shortholds will add to the supply. The simplified regime for lettings by resident landlords will also add to the supply and assured tenancies will encourage new building for rent.
For the first time in years a Government have looked for constructive ways of halting and reversing the decline in this sector. The contrast with the behaviour of the previous Government is vivid. Sixteen months after they had promised it they had still not published a report on the private rented sector. Once again, the Labour Government refused to face the fundamental issues, and the net result, as ever, was damage in the end to the very people whom they claimed to be trying to protect.

955
Year after year under the last Labour Government the number of homes to rent declined. They were totally inactive. They commissioned evidence; they had a review and then another review; then they sought more evidence. They thought, they talked, they argued and they consulted, but they actually did nothing at all. They did not even dare to publish their own review. We can only suppose that their review was a blistering indictment of their own policies.
I turn now to rates—perhaps the burden that the householder resents most of all. Let there be no doubt about where the responsibility for the burden of high rates this year will lie. It will lie with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his colleagues who have embarked on a deliberate campaign to encourage local authorities to spend more.
I never cease to be amazed by the right hon. Gentleman's effrontery. But to put down the motion that we are debating today in the light of his record over the last few months is perhaps setting new standards, even by his own. Only five weeks ago on 2 February 1980, the right hon. Member was off on one of his weekend frolics. He told his audience:
"I am sure that when it is in your power to avoid making cuts you will do so… of course in many, perhaps all, areas that will mean rate increase. … or to put it more precisely, extra rate increases."
While the right hon. Gentleman was travelling the country urging more rate increases and extra local government expenditure I was actually pleading with local authorities to reduce the level of their expenditure. I had already asked them to reduce spending by 2.5 per cent. next year compared with last year. I had introduced a rate support grant settlement which was absolutely fair[Interruption.]—but the percentage of the rate support grant was exactly the same as that which Labour Members introduced themselves. They actually based their assessment on the assumption of a 5 per cent. and an 8 per cent. change in wages and prices respectively. They forced that down local authorities' throats. If they really believe that, against that background, my rate support grant settlement is anything other than fair, they are not aware of the figures. But of course we are fully aware that they are not concerned with the figures. At every meet-
956
ing with local government that I attended I asked that not a penny more should be raised than was absolutely essential. I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 2 February. He said:
"Most of you"—
he told Labour local councillors—
"will choose the additional increase, and in doing so, will receive the wholehearted support of the Labour movement."
There we have it. That is the Labour Party encouraging the level of public expenditure to be increased and urging its members and its councillors to push it up. There it is begging and imploring them to put up the rates. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be disappointed with the results that he has achieved. It is not as if the Labour Party has let him down. It may not be much that Opposition Members can agree about, but when it comes to putting up the rates they have a clam-like solidarity.
I start with the right hon. Gentleman's home town. It is interesting to start with Sheffield because the right hon. Gentleman has explained to us how the Labour Party works in Sheffield. The House may have seen the article which appeared in New Society on 31 January. It states:
"We ran the city with fists of stainless steel, a metal no decent Sheffielder would cover with a velvet glove. We took all the Committee chairmanships. We ensured that every board of school governors had a majority of Labour Party members. We met as a Labour group on the Monday before the full council meeting and examined every sentence of the council minutes with meticulous care. By the end of the meeting every line in the whole, 100-page document was either official policy or subject to official amendment. There were no free votes. Any councillor who sought without approval to alter philosophy, proposal or punctuation was automatically disciplined."
No one in Sheffield need have any doubt about who is clenching the iron fist this year, as the rates are squeezed up by 45 per cent. in one year. The ratepayers of Sheffield, by the standards of the Labour Party, have not come off that badly. In Liverpool Labour has put up the rates by 50 per cent. In Wolverhampton it has put them up by 56 per cent. Every day new records are broken. Labour may have put up the rates by a staggering 177 per cent. in Stockton-on-Tees, but there is still time for later results by late runners to break Labour's record in this rate-fixing contest. For the right hon. Gentleman it is still very much a case of 177 not out as he wields his bat.

957
It is interesting to consider the right hon. Gentleman's advice to put up all the rates, to increase expenditure and to increase all the bills. Let us consider how much he has achieved in London. Last week the Evening Standard published a league table. It seems that 11 Labour authorities have achieved greater rate rises than those achieved by the highest placed Tory councils. All the right hon. Gentleman's friends are on the roll of honour—for example, Lambeth, Hackney, Lewisham and Southwark. They are all there with rises over 45 per cent.
There is an increased burden and it is Labour's burden. It averages £2 a week for ratepayers in Lambeth and Islington. The price of municipal Socialism in Camden has now reached £408 a year. That contrasts dramatically with the much more responsible behaviour from Conservative authorities throughout the country. In many Conservative-controlled authorities there has been an increase in line with or less than the rate of inflation. In London, 12 Conservative authorities have lower increases than the smallest Labour increase.
In Blackburn the Conservatives on the finance committee reduced by 5p the Labour plan. In Preston we see an increase of 14 per cent., in Sevenoaks 14 per cent., in Leeds 16 per cent., in West Lancashire 15 per cent. and in West Yorkshire 14 per cent. There is not the slightest doubt about the pattern that is emerging—responsibility and restraint in Conservative authorities compared with a conscious and determined policy in Labour authorities, led by the right hon. Gentleman, to spend, spend and spend again.
Last year the right hon. Gentleman told local authorities:
"Don't get mad, get even."
With whom does he think they are getting even? Ratepayers are faced with having to find the extra money to pay the bills. Employees are forced out of jobs because their employers cannot afford mounting rate bills. Small businessmen are unable to carry the overheads. How does he explain to the family in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in a three-bedroomed semi that it is paying £269 a year so that the council may get even, when the same family in Leeds is paying less than half that amount?
958
That brings us back to the word with which I began—responsibility. We have adopted, and we shall continue to follow, the policies which we know are necessary in every area of economic and social policy. We shall be constructive. The measures in the Housing Bill will bring about the widest expansion of home ownership in the shortest period that the nation has even known as council houses are sold to their tenants. There is no shortage there of people wanting to take on the burden of home ownership. And in a range of other ways we shall help—for example, by building for sale, by starter homes, by an improved and streamlined home improvement grants system, by the AIMS scheme and by the promotion of shared ownership.
We shall encourage the concentration of the available resources on priorities. The House will be pleased to know that in the fourth quarter of 1979 starts and completions of dwellings specially designed for the chronically sick and disabled were running at new record levels. Grants for improvement and conversion were at the highest level for over four years. In the private sector builders are looking for ways to assist buyers, especially first-time purchasers. Through the speeding of the planning process I am helping builders. The building societies have agreed to make available £400 million this year under the support scheme.
Within the realities of the economic position our approach is fundamentally constructive. We recognise that the basic objective behind all our policy has to be the restoration of economic sense. We shall not hide behind the futile rejection of reality that characterised the housing policies of the previous Government. We shall continue to strive to bring about that sense of restraint in local Government spending for which the nation looks.
4.59 pm
Mr. Stanley Newens: The Secretary of State referred to local authorities. A great many Conservative local authorities regard him as an utter disaster. I think that those were the words uttered by that well-known Conservative, Sir Horace Cutler, only this weekend when describing his policies. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what his rate support grant settlement means to

959
local authorities, he should ask the Conservative-controlled Essex county council. He will find that it is critical of the policies that he has introduced.
The South-East of England is frequently considered to be an area where there is more prosperity than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That view is probably justifiable. However, for those of limited means who seek a home of their own, the position is probably more difficult in the South-East than in many other parts of the country, because people in other parts of the country are understandably attracted to the South-East in search of employment and promotion. That lengthens local authority waiting lists in the South-East, raises the price of houses and cuts down on the availability of all types of property.
The Labour council in Harlow, side by side with the Harlow development corporation, has enabled young people to obtain a tenancy after a comparatively short time. In this respect Harlow has been an oasis in a sea of Conservative gloom. Because there is no sex discrimination on the waiting list for second-generation applicants in Harlow, we often house people from outside; if a Harlow boy or girl marries someone from outside or vice versa, Harlow is always expected to provide the couple with a tenancy unless they wish to buy. There is no authority under Conservative control in the surrounding area which has a housing policy remotely approaching in quality that which has been pursued in Harlow new town.
The Government's policy is likely to end all that. First, the Government intend to force councils such as Harlow which do not sell council houses to sitting tenants to do so. That will reduce the number of houses available for reletting. Secondly, the Minister is refusing to hand over the only land held by the development corporation scheduled for housing development to the district council when the development corporation is wound up later this year. Thirdly, the cuts in central Government funds for housing will also hit Harlow. More applicants in need of housing—and not only in the immediate Harlow area—will have no alternative to buying, and prices are far beyond what most first-time buyers can envisage paying.
960
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to praise the ideal of home ownership. I agree with him, but it is impossible to buy a house in Harlow or the surrounding areas for less than £20,000. In North Weald, which is part of my constituency, the lowest price even for a two-bedroomed house is £30,000. A better, four-bedroomed house in West Essex may cost at least £50,000. I have with me a copy of the latest edition of the West Essex Gazette which contains advertisements of houses for sale. The price of the vast majority of those houses is way beyond the capacity of the ordinary couple who are first-time buyers. That is typical of practically the whole of Essex.
In these circumstances, not merely Socialists but Conservatives are concerned about their young people being forced to leave the villages and the areas in which they were brought up. Some time ago I led a deputation of the Conservative-controlled Sheering parish council to the Epping Forest council to ask it to build-houses in its parish for rent, but it refused. The policies that the Secretary of State and his party are pursuing are making matters infinitely worse for ordinary people who want a house.
Southend, which has already been mentioned in the debate, is also part of Essex. In Southend, too, one cannot buy a house for less than £20,000. Because of the increase in mortgage repayments this year, even after tax relief the average first-time buyer must pay £127 a month instead of £105 a month for a house of that price. That is what this Government are doing for first-time buyers in areas in the South-East such as Southend.
It is bad enough for a young couple who are first-time buyers when both are working, but when the second child arrives the wife must almost inevitably give up work, and then the couple cannot afford the mortgage repayments. I regularly have in my housing advice bureau people who cannot afford to live in the properties which they are seeking to buy, and who want to sell the house and obtain a council tenancy, for which they are not eligible.
If the Secretary of State goes ahead with his policy of giving people in the new towns and in council houses generally the opportunity to buy, many of

961
them will be homeless later. They will not be able to keep up the mortgage repayments, and there will be no local authority houses available to rehouse them.
We face a serious position. Costs in general are extremely high in the South-East. In addition to meeting high fuel costs, rates and so on, many people have to commute to work. The price of a season ticket from Southend to central London—a journey that many people must make—rose from £524 a year to £634 in January.
In those circumstances, the burden being placed on ordinary people as a result of this Government's policy is tremendous. That should be recognised throughout the country, but particularly in the South-East, where unfortunately many people were bamboozled into voting Conservative at the last general election because they thought that they would get something out of it.
On Thursday the people of Southend, East have the opportunity to pass, judgment on what this Government have done to date to increase burdens on people. The by-election was hurriedly fitted in before the Budget in case the position became even clearer to those living in Southend. I hope that they will take the opportunity to speak out clearly not only for their own area but for the people of the South-East as a whole, where the Conservatives have failed to keep their election promises. It will be the first opportunity that people have had to show that they believe those promises to have been compounded of hypocrisy and guile. I very much hope that when the result is known on Thursday night it will be seen by all that the people of Southend at any rate have seen the light.
5.8 pm
Mr. Charles Irving: Unlike the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) I have no intention of making a political speech. I believe that housing is above politics.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on his vision and foresight and his ability to look at the exciting housing possibilities without making a distasteful issue of the matter simply for the purposes of a by-election on Thursday.
962
All hon. Members, of whatever party, are increasingly concerned with a seemingly endless number of people in distress who come to their advice bureaux and give heartbreaking examples of homelessness and the lack of any possibility of obtaining a house. The prospect for many is of the inhumanity of bed and breakfasting, and often the misery of sleeping rough, having to sleep out in all weathers, or in cars. How has this state of affairs come about? Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches bear a great deal of the responsibility. Much of the blame must lie with them.
Apart from the natural distress that arises from present housing conditions, there is in addition the break-up of families and, as a consequence, I believe, a considerable increase in juvenile delinquency. Young kids are left to roam the streets while their parents sleep in cars. It is common throughout the country, and it is a national disgrace that the previous Administration allowed it to build up. It is even more disgraceful for them suddenly, following a change of Government, to try to pretend that all the blame should be placed on the present Government who have been in office only 10 months.
I wish to draw attention to a number of resources which in my view are worthy of deeper and more speedy consideration than developing a wholly new housing programme. Costs have got totally out of hand. Bureaucracy has interceded, with arguments between the Housing Corporation, the Department of the Environment and all the other bodies, resulting in a lengthening of the time necessary for the housing association movement to produce as many units of accommodation as could be provided if that system were improved and if some of the bureaucracy were removed.
I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction that he intends to bring about a simplification of the system so as to enable housing associations to produce the high standards of accommodation which they are now providing but in quite inadequate numbers.
I refer next to a number of the other resources which I have not heard mentioned so far. I understand that about 650,000 properties throughout the land are lying empty. I said when the previous

963
Administration were in office, but it was pooh-poohed and shouted out of court, that much of the blame could be laid at the door of the onerous restrictions contained in the Rent Act. With the opportunity for rent rebates and other aids to people, I believe that a sensible rent structure under a fair rent system will be more equitable and will encourage the private sector to play a greater part in the provision of rented accommodation.
There are an additional 60,000 police houses, prison officers' houses and others which are empty. Local authorities, county councils especially, should be made to justify their reasons for keeping those houses empty. Over the weekend, I was glad to read that a few prison officers' houses were to be let or sold. I cannot remember all the details, but apparently the Home Secretary intervened, and a number of these houses are to be brought into use. It is criminal to allow, for whatever reason, massive numbers of houses to remain empty given the quite miserable and desperate situation that exists.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will find a moment in his reply to touch upon the hundreds of thousands of under-occupied houses. In the council housing sector there are many three and four-bedroomed houses with only one occupant. I agree that it would be inhuman to tell the single occupant of such a house that, since his or her family had left, the house must be vacated. However, housing authorities should make more strenuous efforts to provide greater incentives in order to encourage such people to move into flats. I know of cases in my constituency—and I suspect the position is the same throughout the country—where flats built for one occupant house families of three or four when, just down the road, there are three and four-bedroomed houses with single occupants. There must be a way of providing sensible incentives to persuade people to change their accommodation.
Mr. Scott: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment there is an actual disincentive for people to let out parts of their houses privately because they are charged capital gains tax on those parts of their houses which they use for private renting?
Mr. Irving: My hon. Friend is right. It is a problem which I hope will be tackled in the forthcoming Budget.
I wish to refer also to local authorities, of which I have some experience. I am still a member of two authorities. It is well known that local authorities of both parties are sitting on hundreds of acres of land which cost them nothing. They have had it for years and years. There should be a way in which those acres could be split up into small plots which would attract small builders. In that way, houses could be built at low cost because the land could be provided for a nominal charge, either leasehold or freehold.
I was interested to read a report last week of an occasion recently when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for whom I have the greatest and fondest regard, opened a house in Salisbury. It had been built for less than £15,000. Its real value was double that. The explanation was that in Salisbury the land had been provided at a nominal cost. I shall pass the relevant newspaper cutting to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction in case he missed that report. A great deal of encouragement needs to be given by the Department of the Environment in order to bring into use land which at the moment is lying idle whilst people wait in misery for homes.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he intended to raise some of the restrictions imposed by the Rent Act. There is no doubt that protection for the poor and for lower income groups can be, should be and is rightly provided through the rent and rate rebate system. However, despite all the publicity given to it, we still have not got over the message to people that those aids are available. In my area, about 30 per cent. of those entitled to rent or rate rebates fail to claim them. Perhaps the Minister could consider a further programme of publicity. Very often it is those who least deserve to suffer who do so, because they tend to look upon these rebates as charity. They are nothing of the sort. They are aids as of right. There are flats whose rents are perhaps higher than they would be normally which could be made available to such people if they took advantage of the available rebates.

965
I support the Government's proposed amendment to the motion. With imagination, good will and co-operation, a great deal can be done in the next 12 months to reduce the miserable plight of the homeless.
5.20 pm
Mr. Stephen Ross: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) said, but I do not share his optimism. I believe that the housing situation is likely to lead to civil unrest unless we do something quickly. Nothing on the skyline gives one confidence for the future. I agree that housing should be taken out of party politics. I think that a number of hon. Members who are present today could co-operate to solve our housing problems in three years, given good will.
Both major parties are to blame. But the actions of the Conservative Government over the last 10 months have been beyond comprehension. It is absolute nonsense to try to deal with our housing problems in one blanket measure. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) said, the main pressures on housing are in the South, the South-East and possibly the West Country. To allocate housing investment programmes overall for housing authorities throughout the country will lead to enormous problems. We should consider individual problems such as the length of their lists and the amount of local authority stock.
According to the recent Building Societies Association pamphlet, the average price of a house is £27,403 in the South-East and £16,845 in Yorkshire. All my children were brought up on the Isle of Wight but, sensibly, three of them have left because they have been priced out.
My second daughter now teaches in the North-East. I went there at the new year and found that one can buy a perfectly good centrally heated terrace house at Stanley in County Durham for under £8,000. The equivalent on the Isle of Wight is £16,000, and we are a low-wage area.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not been more daring with the private sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham that more could be done by private landlords. If there is
966
no money for public expenditure, let us use the bricks and mortar that exist; we should use properly the assets we have.
I was sad to read in The Sunday Times Business News about a watering down of the free enterprise zones idea for such areas as Dockland. If there is a chance to start again, without having to unravel the Rent Acts, so that letting is left to the open market, let us try it. People will invest if they can get a fair return.
I should like to revamp the whole rent and rate rebates system. I am in favour of housing credits and a tax credit system. Then people who needed help would get it through the tax system. Without more houses to let we shall never get the mobility of labour which is necessary to combat unemployment.
A year or two ago, the Isle of Wight could have attracted skilled workers if only the housing had been available. Those concerned did not want to leave their present properties in the North-East and on the East Coast because they had problems selling them and they did not know if they would be able to return.
Shorthold it a good idea, but it will not work because no one will dare to let on that basis for up to five years. It is worth an experiment in areas where housing is short, such as the South-East, but when people know that the Labour Party has threatened to put such lettings back under the Rent Acts, no one will try it. The Secretary of State is glib when he talks of shorthold helping to solve this problem.
A growing problem for people who have houses is that they may have to sell them because they cannot afford the mortgages. I was speaking to some teachers on Friday night—and no one will ever convince me that teachers are overpaid. One of them had been teaching on the Isle of Wight for 15 years and earns just over £6,000. His mortgage is £15,000, so his monthly repayments are £196 gross—40 per cent. of his monthly income. He has nothing left to spend on himself. Bank managers are telling these people that they will have to sell their houses because they are beyond their means.
Students also face difficulties. Two of my sons who are at agricultural college get just over £330 a term. Immediately, they must pay out £280 or £290 for board

967
and lodging. There is nothing left, so I have to cough up—and I thought that I had got rid of them!
Students at college are paying a fair whack. This is the stupid part of the system. They pay £20 to £25 for one room and use of a bathroom, so they at least are paying market rents—but we give them no help. Student grants are too low to cover such costs.
In the short term, resources should go to authorities in the greatest need. I must make a plea for my own constituency. The population is increasing by well over 1,000 a year. Only 13 per cent. of the houses are local authority stock. I dread going home sometimes because people queue up outside my door with housing problems. Some of these people have prams and say to me "I have nowhere to go tonight."
Medina borough council on the Isle of Wight completed 87 houses in 1978–79 and has started another 36 at Cowes this year. Apart from that, there is nothing on the skyline except a brewery site on which it is hoped to start 80 units some time next financial year on a two and a half year scheme. South Wight borough council will start precisely eight flats in the next financial year. These efforts compare with a waiting list of 2,400 in Medina and 1,030 in South Wight. The problem is growing all the time; 28 families are in bed and breakfast places in Medina and four in South Wight. There is no hope.
We could at least make much greater use of short life property. Perhaps the Minister could have a word with his Conservative friends on Portsmouth council and point out that the council could make better use of the houses in Cumberland Road. In areas such as Redbridge, many houses stand empty because of road schemes which will now never take place. 'They could be taken over by short life housing associations.
There are over 80 empty prison houses on the Isle of Wight. I have tabled question after question asking when the council will be able to take them over. They should not be sold. The local authority should be allowed to take a five-year lease on them and put people in them. Yet we are told that they must be sold. We should make more use of mobile homes on properly managed sites. We
968
shall have to come to this. Decent mobile homes on good sites can be provided much more cheaply than ordinary housing.
Rateable value levels should be raised so that people who need them most can qualify for improvement grants. I know a handicapped person who has had to take central heating out of her house to get an improvement grant. Repair grants should he introduced for owner-occupiers of houses that are over 100 years old. Many hon. Members must have heard elderly people complaining that their roof was in bad repair and that they could not afford to do anything about it. As owner-occupiers they cannot get help with such repairs. I thought that there was a move to achieve this, but it seems to have fallen through. I want it introduced—and I will be first in the queue for a grant.
The Department of the Environment has nowhere near enough statistics, or statistics which are sufficiently comprehensive, about what is happening in different parts of the country. I have put down many questions seeking such statitics, only to discover that, for instance, the Department does not know the length of waiting lists in different areas.
If such figures were made readily available, people might be encouraged to retire to Milton Keynes instead of to the South Coast. It is a desirable place with marvellous facilities. Perhaps they might then consider the East Coast rather than the South and West. This is a free country and we cannot stop people from retiring where they want, but we could point out that house prices are much lower in many other desirable areas. They could be advised to think carefully before flocking down to our neck of the woods.
Something should be done to help those elderly people who cannot even pay their insurance premiums. One woman frightened me to death by writing to say that she was not going to pay her insurance premium because she could no longer afford it. As someone whose property has burned down, I wrote back saying "For God's sake renew your premium." Someone must help people in that difficulty. I am sure that many people are totally uninsured. The value of most houses now is probably £30 plus

969
per square foot. Too many people are under-insured; I expect that applies even to many hon. Members.
We should provide better protection for long leaseholders of flats. Some people in that position are in trouble in London and in my constituency, since they face repair bills that they never expected. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Chancellor to raise the starting level for stamp duty. A level of £15.000 is absolute nonsense; it must be raised to £30,000, if not done away with altogether. We must also raise mortgage relief from the £25,000 limit.
I introduced the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to this House. The only person who voted against it in Committee was the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Conservative Members did not vote against it. They tabled amendments and I was grateful for the assistance of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act should not be watered down. When half of all households now comprise one or two people only it is important that we should give priority to those most in need.
Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) think that local authorities should be under an obligation to house people from overseas, who have no connection with their local authority, before the indigenous population who are on the housing waiting lists to which he has referred.
Mr. Ross: I listened to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) the other day and he was talking nonsense then. The courts have interpreted the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act rather well. The Italians who tried to get a house in Horsham did not get it. The Abyssinian lady had been married to an Englishman who had died abroad and she had been back in this country since June last year. She was offered a house by the GLC but Hillingdon council challenged her to take it to court and got its rich deserts. That kind of case is rare. It is not true that the Irish are flocking in from Dublin and queuing up for houses in Rugby. That is absolute tripe. Conservative Members have done their cause no good by raising such hares.
970
The newspapers always take such stories up but for goodness sake I hope that we are compassionate enough to give priority to families with young children, to pregnant women and to the elderly who are the vulnerable members of our society. If we are unable to provide sufficient housing, they are the people who must have some priority. I ask hon. Members to study statistics before rushing into print accusing all and sundry of queue jumping. The vast majority of those housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act have been on housing lists for at least five years. Less than 1 per cent. of those who have moved into houses in the last year have been waiting for under 12 months.
I believe that some modifications could be made to the guidance notes, and that the six-month rule in some seaside areas should be updated or widened in scope. There are possibly one or two small loopholes in the operation of the Act, but, apart from that, it is not working at all badly and I am grateful for the chance to put that on record today.
5.32 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: Despite our disagreements I am grateful for the chance to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in this debate.
Local authorities should take a new look at the way in which they propose to deal with the problem of housing those young people who have lived here all their lives and who are now looking for a home of their own. The average price of a semi-detached house in my constituency is £35,000. That is totally out of the reach of the average young man and woman wishing to marry and start life together. That kind of problem is brought up every week at my surgery.
My local authority in Hillingdon has started an equity sharing scheme and I wish to tell the House how it is proceeding. The average young couple who come to see me usually afford a mortgage of £12,000. Some can manage a little more, some can manage less. Those are the figures from my area, and I realise that figures vary substantially from one part of the country to another. The figures are probably higher in my area because there is a lot of highly paid employment.

971
Whether that employment is in light engineering in West Middlesex or at London airport, young people in my area are able to earn good incomes, but they certainly are not able to buy houses at £35,000.
Under the equity sharing scheme they can purchase as little as 30 per cent. of the value of a house. Most of the property being sold by Hillingdon council is in the £30,000 price range. That means that young couples are able to buy 30 per cent. or more of the value of their house and rent the rest, though I am told that quite a number of young couples buy as much as 50 per cent. and rent the remainder. All local authorities should examine the possibility of expanding opportunities for equity sharing. Equity sharing gives many youngsters the opportunity to get a foot on the house purchase ladder, thus enabling them to look forward to a home of their own rather than having to rent from a local authority.
I should like to see more starter homes for young people. I should also like to see some of the land to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) referred being sold off in individual plots to young people, on the basis that they could have a home built of a certain design. There could be a variety of house designs and house sizes to suit differing needs and pockets on the same development. We must tackle the problem of the sale of land as well as the sale of completed housing.
There needs to be a degree of flexibility in the housing investment programme grant. The price of property in my constituency is substantial and I believe that the variations in the prices of property all over the country should be in the forefront of the minds of Ministers as they examine these problems. We realise that there is a lack of land in the great conurbations, but there is land in the centre of cities such as London, and I welcome the setting up of the urban development corporations. We must develop the vacant land in the centre of London in order to rehabilitate the centre of our great city.
The cost of travelling from Uxbridge to central London is around £400 a year. That is a crippling burden for a young person who is starting work in London. Most young people cannot buy homes in
972
London or easily find homes to rent. We must do something pretty fast to provide homes for those young people we need in London—the young people who will work in industry and commerce and who will contribute to the life of the country when others have retired. That is a problem that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Newens: I am following the argument of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) with great interest. Can he say how the Government are in any way helping the policies that he advocates? Surely the Government are making it more difficult to put such policies into operation.
Mr. Shersby: I do not agree that the Government are making it difficult. I believe that the establishment of the urban development corporations is a major step in the direction of helping to redevelop the centre of London. Most of the land in constituencies such as mine has already been developed and green belt land is not available for development. Young people need to be able to live close to their work in big cities. I should like to see the centre of London populated once more by young people. I should like to see young mothers with babies in prams there. We need young communities in the centre of London rather than the ageing population of some London boroughs.
I believe that that problem can be tackled only by such bodies as the urban development corporations, and I welcome the recent remarks in this House of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). The right hon. Gentleman is to place his very substantial knowledge of London's housing problems at the disposal of the urban development corporation in its dealings with dockland.
I hesitate to mention the problem that none of us can escape. That is the problem created by so many young couples up to the age of 20 who have started a family without having somewhere suitable in which to have that family. Such young couples are probably living with their parents. That arrangement may work well for a short time, but frictions eventually develop and family stresses and strains are set up when a young family is started in such circumstances. It is incumbent on young people to remember the grave difficulties which they

973
face, and which many others in previous generations have faced, in obtaining suitable accommodation and to try to plan their families accordingly. Young people should recognise that a happy home must have room for children to grow up and enjoy life without being crammed into one room.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was exactly what I expected from him a couple of days before an important by-election. I was sorry that he descended to such trivia when we are trying to consider the real problems that face those whom we represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham raised the debate to its correct level.
The level of rates is a major burden for home owners. The eight big spenders in London are the Labour-controlled boroughs of Lambeth, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Waltham Forest, Newham, Hounslow and Islington. Brent and Camden follow close behind. Why do those boroughs charge their ratepayers so much? The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has done everything possible to encourage them to sting the ratepayers for all that they can afford. That is intolerable. It does not make life easier for a young couple living in Brent, Hackney or Lewisham. Conservative, Labour and Liberal councillors should recognise that the level of rates is one of their gravest responsibilities. It is incumbent upon them to keep local expenditure down to a level which people can afford. Rates should not be increased just because councils refuse to reduce any of their services.
I have no doubt that in many of those big-spending boroughs there are many inessential projects which could be cut in order to reduce the rate burden. I compare Lambeth—Ted Knight's Socialist paradise—with the borough of Hillingdon. Lambeth rates are up by 49 per cent. and Hillingdon's by only 14 per cent. The reason is that the leader of the Hillingdon council and his colleagues have chopped £6 million off expenditure in the last year. For example, the ski slope on Western Avenue has been transferred to private enterprise. It provides as good a service to sportsmen as it did when it was a burden on the ratepayers. The councillors in Socialist boroughs
974
should take note that their responsibility is great. They must cut down the substantial burden on ratepayers, particularly young ratepayers.
I am anxious about the many young couples who seek homes in the London area. The answer to their problems is to give them the opportunity to buy their homes through a shared purchase scheme. I hope that the Minister will explain what plans the Government have for encouraging local authorities to expand that type of scheme.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of the land owned by local authorities which could be made available to young people. I hope, too, that he will explain his policy for encouraging young people to be more mobile and to occupy homes in other parts of the country if that is consistent with their employment opportunities.
This is a valuable debate. It gives hon. Members the opportunity to say frankly what they feel about the problems in their constituencies. I hope that we keep the debate on that level.
5.44 pm
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I do not agree with the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who suggested that housing is above politics or that it should be made to be so. The solutions offered by both sides are political. They take into account the different vested interests. Government Members, by and large, represent property interests. They have rightly spoken at length about the needs of the homeless and of the need for young couples living with their parents to be rehoused. Much of what they have said is true. I do not doubt their sincerity. However, the problems cannot be solved unless we honestly acknowledge the differences in policy between the Conservative and Labour Parties and the implications of such policies.
I shall deal with one aspect—the rising costs and implications of the home ownership that was offered during the general election campaign. That offer, in Thurrock and elsewhere, was one reason for the large swing to the Tory Party. People were told that at last they were to be given the chance to buy their council homes. It was suggested that the Labour Party was totally opposed to that policy.

975
Of course, that is not true. Labour Party policy is that homes may be sold only when the young couples and the homeless about whom Government Members have spoken so eloquently have been properly and adequately housed. Only then may housing be made available for sale.
If people really want to know what the Tory Party policy amounts to and what its implications are they must examine closely the activities of the GLC since it began its sales drive in 1977. It was launched by Sir Horace Cutler, in a blaze of glory. He said that the sales policy was justified on the ground that it would lead to substantial financial savings for the council.
What has happened since? People are unwilling to buy many types of council property. They are unwilling to buy flats in high-rise blocks. By the end of 1979 only 3 per cent. of sales were of council flats. Only 16 per cent. of houses and flats have been sold in the inner London boroughs where the majority of GLC property is located. Most sales are of homes in estates outside the immediate GLC area where the GLC owns 30,000 properties. Regrettably it owns and manages two estates in my constituency.
The tenants of GLC properties in Thurrock are much like council tenants elsewhere. Many cannot take up the offer of a council house sale. In Thurrock, as elsewhere, many council tenants live on supplementary benefit. Others live on low or irregular incomes, are unemployed, or are unable to obtain a mortgage because they are aged or single parents. Only a small proportion of council house tenants in Thurrock, as elsewhere, can take the opportunity of buying a council house or flat, which they were told would be offered to them at substantial discounts.
GLC tenants on the two estates to which I referred have found exactly what the Tory promises amount to. I shall give two examples. The first involves a constituent who has given me her permission to cite her case and to explain what has happened to her. Her name is Mrs. Wilkinson, and her story starts in October 1977, when she first applied to buy the council house in which she lived and which the GLC was prepared to offer for sale. That was shortly after Sir Horace Cutler had made his great offer of council houses for sale for all.
976
Ultimately, in January 1979, she and her husband were offered the house at £7,990. They were offered a discount, which enabled them to buy the house with a mortgage of only £1,500. They had a good reason for doing that. Mr. Wilkinson was obliged by an injury sustained during his time as a prisoner of war to take early retirement from his job of some responsibility in the Post Office. He is no longer able to work in the Post Office, and he receives a small pension from it. He is able to do another small job as well.
The procedures were put into operation to allow them to take up the original offer. Completion date was to be 18 February this year, but two days before that the Wilkinsons received a letter from the GLC giving one clear working day's notice in which to contact the relevant offices, saying that the council—legally, of course—had withdrawn its offer because the house was to be revalued.
In other words, while the Tories may have promised people that they could buy their own council houses they gave no indication of how long the GLC would drag out the process without the tenants knowing at the end whether they would be gazumped. So much for the responsibility of which the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon when he described the Tory attitude on housing policy. Does "responsible" mean that the GLC will engage in gazumping, which, while not illegal, has been the subject of moral condemnation on both sides of the House?
I have written to Sir Horace Cutler about the plight of the couple—I have yet to receive a reply—seeking the reasons for the revaluation, which was not required under the terms of the Secretary of State's recent circular. The Wilkinsons have been given a new offer, which increases the price of their house by £800. Since Mr. Wilkinson has retired, and in view of Mrs. Wilkinson's age, they have decided somehow to scrape together the extra money in order to buy the house. That £800 may not be much to the Secretary of State or to many Conservatives but to this couple it is certainly a great deal to have to find, especially after months of anxiety.
Another letter from constituents relates similar experiences. I will not give the constituents' name, since I have not

977
yet had the opportunity to seek their permission to do so. Their house was assessed in May 1978 at a market value of £10,170. A 30 per cent. discount was offered for their agreeing not to sell for eight years, which brought the price down to just over £7,000—a figure that they accepted. In November 1979 their hopes were raised even further when the GLC said that they qualified for a 50 per cent. discount, bringing the price to just over £5,000, which, once again, they accepted. Finally, the GLC issued a new offer which put the price up to £6,410. Once again the GLC was guilty of long bureaucratic delays. It showed no honour and no responsibility towards the would-be purchasers, but it showed a willingness to engage in gazumping.
GLC tenants have therefore had the opportunity to see what Tory policies amount to over a three-year period. I have cited the example of two cases involving my constituents, but a number of revaluations are taking place throughout the GLC area. It is difficult to get the precise number. The revaluations range from 1,300 to 4,000. A large number of tenants, like my constituents, have undergone long and protracted negotiations without knowing what the ultimate purchase prices of the houses would be, what size of mortgages they would have to arrange, and what sort of repayments they would have to make.
The Secretary of State is well aware of what is happening in the GLC and elsewhere. However, in reply to parliamentary questions he has told us that he has no idea how long local authorities are taking to negotiate the sale of council houses and that he this no note in of how many revaluations are being issued. He does not know how many tenants are placed in the position of my constituents whose problems I have described. Is the right hon. Gentleman adopting a responsible attitude on housing policy when he cannot take the trouble to secure these two vital pieces of information, particularly since this is supposed to be his great policy for extending home ownership?
I hope that the electors in Southend this week and elsewhere in the future will realise just what a con Tory promises are. The Tories are compelled and prepared to act legally, but they are
978
not prepared to act responsibly to ensure that their actions towards their tenants are morally right. So much for the notion of extending home ownership at prices that people can afford. People are faced with uncertainty and irresponsibility on the part of Tory-controlled local authorities, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State.
6 pm
Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tam-worth): Deception is a fashionable vice, and all fashionable vices pass for virtues. The Opposition motion is deceptive and has absolutely no virtue. It is deceptive because it implies that the problems presently visited upon home owners, upon tenants and upon those seeking to buy their own homes or seeking to rent flats and houses are the fault of the present Government. There is no virtue in such a deception.
We heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatters-ley) talk about high mortgage interest rates, and depressing they are, too, but this Government inherited an economic situation created by his Administration's pre-election spending bonanza which is now working through the economic system and remains still to be worked out. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues why it was that during the five years of his Government the supply of private rented accommodation dwindled drastically and diminished by 125.000 homes per year. He knows that the only way to mobilise our static and wooden work force, locked in their homes because of the dead hand of rent control, and give the mobility that our stagnant economy so desperately needs is to give people a choice—the choice whether to rent or to buy.
Instead of encouraging builders to build homes for sale, the Labour Government pursued the dogmatic path of land nationalisation by implementing the extravagant and self-destructive Community Land Act, which, happily, is now being dismantled by the present Government. That Act caused the supply of building land to dry up, causing builders to go out of business because there was no land on which they could build new homes, which meant that the demand for new homes, particularly among first-time buyers, exceeded supply, which in turn

979
meant that during those five disastrous years between 1974 and 1979 house prices rocketed by an average of 30 per cent. per annum, a point conveniently missed by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech.
Instead of encouraging landlords to make private rented accommodation freely available on the open market, to give an opportunity to those who could not afford to buy or who did not wish to buy their own homes, the Labour Government enacted the Rent Acts of 1974 and 1977.
It is no wonder that the supply of private rented accommodation dried up. It is no wonder that the housing waiting lists, about which hon. Members on both sides have spoken, grew out of all proportion during those five years. It is no wonder that homelessness has risen to astronomical proportions, and it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman's Government were forced to enact the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
I join the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in throwing out a challenge to the Opposition. Because of their stubborn refusal to acknowledge that rent control strangles the supply of homes to rent and increases human misery, we shall never solve our housing crisis unless and until some brave and moderate voices on the Opposition Benches—and there are some—publicly acknowledge that the Labour Party agrees that the ultimate answer lies in a gradual programme of decontrol.
I ask the Opposition to agree that this Government's shorthold tenancy provisions in the Housing Bill are a brave attempt to breathe a breath of fresh air into the heretofore stagnant private rented sector. Furthermore, will they agree that the provisions in the Housing Bill relating to assured tenancies will encourage builders to build new homes to rent, as they did between the wars—the Wates, the Wimpeys, the Taylor Woodrows, which mixed our housing estates, with home owner beside tenant? They will be able to do so again through the provision of assured tenancies, freed from the stagnation of rent control.
I draw the Opposition's attention to their own consultative document entitled "Housing Policy", of June 1977, Cmnd. 6851 to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier. I
980
direct particular attention to this passage in paragraphs 8·10 and 8·11:
"The needs of many people… will only be satisfactorily met by renting, and under present arrangements most of them would not have a very high priority in public sector waiting lists. If the decline continued unabated and no action were taken to compensate for the loss of accommodation from the sector, many people—particularly new or mobile households—might not be able to find the housing they need."
So the answer to the Opposition's motion is simple—"It is in your hands, gentlemen". If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the courage to admit that the control of the private rented sector has caused the drying up of the supply of homes to rent, the way will be found. The most effective way of easing the burden on those wishing to rent or to own a house is for the Opposition to come clean, to face the truth and to put their policies where their thoughts are—to admit that rent control makes for misery and for homelessness, that land nationalisation causes bankruptcy and unemployment in the building industry and does not help the building of new homes.
Let the Opposition admit that now is the time to cast off the cloak of dogma and agree that the nation's housing crisis will be solved only in a free and fair market place where demand equals supply. It is that challenge which is embodied in the Government's Housing Bill, which couples the aims and ambitions of so many people to buy their own council houses with the opportunity for private landlords once again to provide flats and houses to rent and so give people a choice in where they wish to live.
6.5 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: The Secretary of State for the Environment seemed to be outlining monetarist policies, which is usually the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry in this Government, as well as of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister.
Strangely, the Secretary of State defended cuts in public expenditure. He extolled them as a virtue. It seems strange that a man who extols cuts in public expenditure as a virtue should, when he announces cuts, try to mislead people about the scale and scope of those cuts.

981
A cut of 21 per cent. in the housing investment programme turns out to be a cut of 34 per cent. The Secretary of State says that the rate support grant is not a cut at all; it is 61 per cent., the same at the rate support grant settlement introduced by the last Labour Government. If it is not a cut, he is falling down in his duties and responsibilities to the Prime Minister, who is urging cuts. It is either a cut or it is not. The Government Front Bench cannot have it both ways. Ministers cannot on the one hand claim that they are cutting public expenditure and, on the other, when they make the cuts claim that they are not as bad as all that and are not really cuts at all.
I admit that I feel for the members of the Government Front Bench. They have a difficult job to do. They were given a very difficult job over the weekend by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who has asked them to cut public expenditure even more but to do it in such a way that services are not cut. It has not dawned on the right hon. Gentleman that one cannot cut public expenditure in such sectors as housing without affecting services. It seems that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches want to cut bureaucracy rather than services, so that, for example, instead of reducing the council house building programme perhaps we should sack the rent collectors who would collect the rents from the houses when they are built. It seems that that is the sort of alternative that the Secretary of State has laid before him.
Over the past 11 months, we have had policy statements from the Government which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out, will push rents higher than the level of rents that would have been created by the last Conservative attempt—the Housing Finance Act 1972, which introduced the idea of fair rents in the public sector. We shall soon reach a state of affairs in which rent increases in the public sector will mean that council house rents are higher than the fair rents assessed by rent officers on housing association properties and, indeed, for the time being, in the private rented sector in some areas.
Council house rents are being forced up dramatically as a result of cuts in
982
subsidies and the reduction of housing investment programme moneys for local authorities. In areas with Conservative-controlled councils, council house rents are being pushed up further as those local authorities empty housing revenue accounts and rate fund contributions in order to keep rates down, taking that choice as a result of the rate support grant cuts that they have had from the present Conservative Government.
I take as one example what is happening in Sefton, in my local authority area. I suppose that the Secretary of State would describe the Sefton council as a responsible authority. It is having to impose a rate increase of only 21 per cent. on the people of Sefton. However, a rent increase of between £3 and £4 is being imposed and there are massive cuts in services, including the most despicable act that I have ever known in my experience in local government—the closure of a special school, St. Paul's school, in my constituency, for the educationally subnormal. The children will be bussed 10 miles to a school that already has physically handicapped children in it, and they are to be educated together instead of separately. There will be massive cuts in services. That is but one example.
The 21 per cent. cut in the housing investment programme has hit even Conservative-controlled Sefton, which does not build council houses and has only a small housing investment programme. Its total expenditure for the present financial year, 1979–80, is £9,812,000. It requested £14,223,000—which was bold—but was given only £7,896,000. That £2 million deduction means a cut not in local authority house building but in local authority home loans, grants to housing associations, expenditure on improvements such as damp-proof courses, and other essential items.
There are 4,000 people on the waiting list in the Sefton area, yet rents are rising, houses are not being built, and the present housing stock is being sold. In Sefton, as in other areas, there has been a build-for-sale initiative. I am not opposed to the idea of local authorities joining in partnership with private builders or their own direct labour departments to build houses for sale, but I am opposed to that policy being presented as the means to solve a local authority's housing problem, or as an

983
alternative to local authority house building. It should be considered alongside local authority house building, as an alternative and a fringe activity that could help some people and increase the number of houses available for owner-occupation.
Wimpey was sold land at a reduced cost—less than the market value—by the local authority in Sefton. The houses that are being built should be sold for £16,000. However, Wimpey returned to the local authority and said that because house prices and building costs had escalated during the past six months the least expensive houses would now cost £20,000. An income of more than £8,000 a year is needed to qualify for a mortgage on such a property—if such a mortgage is available at the present time, or if a purchaser can afford the high interest rates. That scheme will not help those who are in need in my constituency.
Because of the Government's policies and because of the cuts that are hurting those in greatest need, I find that more and more people—people who are not normally involved in political issues—are complaining bitterly about the consequences of those policies and cuts. I received a letter from the Reverend David Rouch, the Minister of St. John and St. James', Linacre Lane, Bootle. He said:
"I would like to bring some situations that are taking place with the parish here and are likely to continue while the present economic situation is taking place.
I heard this morning that several parishioners who have made the effort to save and to scrape deposits, etc., to purchase a house are now selling these houses to Merseyside Improved Houses so that they can rent accommodation from M.I.H. My grouse is not that M.I.H. are doing something which is obviously very practicable from their point of view, but I feel in one way or another young couples with children are being penalised when they have made the attempt to purchase their own property."
If a situation exists that causes a minister of the Church to write to me it is not surprising that the country faces such difficulties in housing. It is not surprising that this censure motion has been tabled by the Opposition.
A massive attack is being mounted upon owner-occupiers by the Government. They will be hit by high interest rates, higher mortgage repayments, a massive slump in house building, and the sale of council houses. It will be more diffi-
984
cult for existing owner-occupiers to sell their houses on the open market, especially those with lower-priced properties who sell usually to first-time buyers, often moving out of the public rented sector.
Wimpey, Barratt, and other building firms are opposed to the sale of council houses—Labour Members sometimes keep strange bedfellows—because it is less likely that people will buy their houses when they can buy their council homes as sitting tenants.
In all areas of Wales—where the steel industry is closing down—and in parts of Merseyside—where unemployment is rocketing as a result of Government policies—owner-occupiers are losing their stake in the country. They are unable to sell their houses, because nobody wishes to live in those areas. Unlike the rest of the country where house prices are escalating, house prices are tumbling in those areas, and the whole concept of owner-occupation is being destroyed.
The Government's housing policy must be taken as a whole. Part of it is their wish to sell council houses. Part of it is their wish to stop council house building. Part of it is their wish to increase housing costs in the owner-occupied and public sectors. On their own admission they wish to revive the privately rented sector.
They believe the myth, which they have perpetrated, that the privately rented sector can be revived by getting rid of the effect of the previous Labour Government's wicked rent Acts, by relaxing security of tenure, and by allowing private landlords to charge higher rents. The Conservative Party tries to lead us to believe that the numbers of people who invest money in the privately rented sector will increase as a result of their policies.
That is a myth, and the Labour Party knows that it is a myth. It is a myth, because we subsidise council tenants, the tenants of housing associations and owner-occupiers. While they are subsidised and the private landlord is not subsidised, his alternative will always be a dearer alternative. People will move into the private sector only if they cannot gain admission to the other sectors, if the costs in the other sectors are pushed up, or if scarcity of accommodation in the public sector is created to the extent

985
that the privately rented sector is the only alternative.
The Government's policies will create such scarcities in the public sector. They will make owner-occupation a difficult prospect. They will push up the costs in all the other sectors. The privately rented sector can grow only by attacking the other sectors. That is the strategy behind the Government's housing policy.
6.19 pm
Mr. Nicholas Scott: The self-indulgence of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has made the ending of this debate even more frantic than it would otherwise have been. I shall try to speak briefly in supporting the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends not least because the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and others, is not accurate.
The only terms in which one can judge the cost of housing, either in the public or the private sectors, is in real terms. It is not true that, in real terms, housing in either the public or the private sector is more expensive than it has been at any time in this country's history. The motion is inaccurate. It comes from a party that presided over the doubling of prices, unemployment and debt, and it appears to be a bit thick.
I want to use the few minutes that I have to address my right hon. Friend on the problems of the privately rented sector in inner London. This area of housing policy is unique in this country. I am sure that I shall carry my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) with me in what I am about to say.
Competition for housing in the privately rented sector in inner London is greater than in most other areas of the country, because the members of the indigenous population who are seeking privately rented accommodation are in direct conflict with tourists, short-stay visitors and business people who come to this world-famous city. For many years we had the process of what came to be called creeping hotelisation. Now we have many flats in large blocks in central London used for short-stay accommodation, thus reducing the supply of privately rented accommodation for Londoners.
986
The situation with regard to mansion blocks in Chelsea, Kensington and the cities of London and Westminster and elsewhere in central London has become a scandal. Many of these blocks are traded around companies which are not in this country, but are in Lichtenstein, Saudi Arabia and Monte Carlo. They are held often for only a few months at a time, and the voids—that is the technical term—are increased. Service charges are jacked up to provide artificial gearing and the company is then traded on to another purchaser. Meanwhile, my constituents and those of my hon. Friends who also experience this difficulty see the roofs over their heads being treated in a socially and economically irresponsible manner.
I was looking at one block in my constituency the other day. It is now owned by a company in Saudi Arabia. Of the 24 flats in that perfectly sound block, within yards of Kensington High Street, 18 have been empty for two years. The wiring is hanging from the ceilings and no repairs have been done. It is a scandalous waste of housing resources.
There should be some means of giving the residents of those blocks the right to buy, if not the freehold, at least a long leasehold and to manage the blocks in their own interests. At the very least they should have some control over the management of those blocks, perhaps by setting up some common ownership company or residents' association which would have certain inalienable rights of control.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) has quoted to me the case of a block in his constituency, the lease of which has been sold to a company registered in Curacao, where moneys paid by the tenants by way of service charges for the replacements of the lifts and the repair of the boilers were on a massive scale, running into thousands of pounds, and were paid to the agents of the previous owner. The company in Curacao has appointed new agents, and these agents are now approaching the tenants asking for the charges that have already been paid. This kind of harassment is only too common in central London. At the very least, there should be provision for an agent, a company or a trustee, operating under United Kingdom law, to be responsible for these matters and for the funds paid

987
in respect of service charges to be protected if the company concerned goes into bankruptcy or moves out of this country.
There are many other proposals, on service charges in particular, and on the general question of the way in which private tenants are being treated under the existing law, and will continue to be treated under future law, which need airing and into which I should like to go in more detail, but I shall leave it at that. I simply plead with my hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, to recognise the special difficulties which are imposed upon tenants in the privately rented sector in central London. If we want any kind of balanced community and do not want to turn central London into one vast hotel catering only for tourists and short-stay visitors, some action is necessary.
6.25 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) for keeping his speech short.
It is evident that many Conservative Members genuinely believe that the Government's proposals will lead to a revival of the privately rented sector. The Secretary of State, in his opening speech, spoke of the Government's aim of halting and reversing the decline in the privately rented sector. I suggest that the Government are about to make the same mistake—for the same reasons—as their predecessors made 23 years ago when they passed the Rent Act 1957. They are about to make the same mistake for the same reasons because their understanding of the privately rented market in housing is false. It is based on the view that the reduction of security of tenure will lead to hundreds of thousands of empty properties coming on to the market. The truth is that if we take away security of tenure, as the Government's proposals do in part, and if we raise rents, it will still be economically more advantageous for landlords to seek to sell into owner-occupation than to rent.
Those who doubt what I say should look with care at the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when, 24 years ago, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. In moving Second Reading of the Rent Bill he used language that was almost the same as that used by the Secretary of
988
State this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Down, South said:
"It will halt the drain upon rented accommodation, it will release additional accommodation which is under-used or wasted … and it will give to persons who are moving or setting up home the opportunity to find accommodation in the market."—[Official Report, 21 November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1775.]
The belief—I am sure that it was genuine—was that the Rent Act 1957 would lead to an increase in the supply of rented accommodation. What actually happened? In the four years following the passage of the 1957 Act the privately rented sector declined at twice the rate at which it had declined after the passage of the 1954 Rent Act, which brought back security of tenure.
Between 1951 and 1956, privately rented accommodation declined by about 180,000 a year. After the passage of the 1957 Act it declined by a staggering 325,000 a year. But between 1966 and 1971, when the Labour Government's Rent Acts were back in force, the decline had been halted to some extent and was back to 140,000.
Whatever the genuineness of the Government's intentions, the truth is that their proposals in the Housing Bill and other measures to revive the rented sector will not lead to that revival. Instead, they will lead to an increase in rents, to a reduction in security for private sector tenants and to an increase in waiting lists and potential misery. They will not lead to the revival of the privately rented sector that the Government seek.
Southend, East has been on the agenda today. When I was in Southend last week it was noteworthy that Conservative canvassers were not going out of their way to draw to the attention of the electorate just how valuable these proposals in the Housing Bill would be. It is not surprising, because 15,500 households in Southend are in the privately rented sector. About 24 per cent. of households in Southend—almost twice the national average—are privately rented. The Conservatives in Southend know, even if the Conservatives in the House do not know, that the Housing Bill's proposals on the private sector will lead to an increase in misery for those 15,500 private tenants in Southend because of higher rents and worse accommodation.

989
It is true that some people will benefit from the Government's proposals on the privately rented sector. We had a foretaste of who those people would be in The Sunday Times Business News last Sunday. In the column headed "What's Up.", under the heading
"Living with a hot property",
we were told:
"The Housing Bill now making its way towards the statute book spells good news for the few property companies which have retained substantial residential portfolios. Top of the list are the Bradford Property Trust … already worth more than 250p a share against a share price of 172p. The Bill, allowing shorter leases and more regular rent increases in specific cases, will push up the asset figure even further."
It is clear from The Sunday Times, just as it was from the document that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) found on the train, that the property speculators aim to benefit from the Government's proposals. In the privately rented sector, just as in the council and owner-occupied sectors, there is a staggering gap between the promise and the performance of the Government. Owner-occupiers were promised lower mortgage rates but they have discovered higher mortgage rates. Council tenants were promised the right to buy their houses but, as we have heard, that right has in many cases been rendered otiose by the bureaucratic delays of authorities such as the GLC.
In future, we shall find that this Secretary of State, far from being the man who helped the housing situation, will go down as the man who brought housing back to the kind of crisis proportions that existed in the 1950s. Under Labour, waiting lists were getting shorter, but the right hon. Gentleman will end his time as Secretary of State as the man who reintroduced into housing lengthening waiting lists of hundreds of thousands of people.
6.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The country today faces the gravest housing crisis in the political lifetime of any hon. Member. That of itself is a grim enough truth. Even more offensive is the fact that this crisis has not come about by accident. It is the direct consequence of the deliberate policies of the Tory Government.
990
This afternoon the Secretary of State met the challenge of that indictment head-on in his characteristic way. He decided to make a speech about several other subjects. Yet the fact is that this is the first Government for a generation and more who have simply decided not to have a house building programme. The Secretary of State was quite open about it last month when he made his statement on housing public expenditure. The House will recall that statement. It was the one in which the right hon. Gentleman, in his inventive way with statistics, pretended that the cut in housing investment was 21 per cent., rather than the 33·4 per cent. cut in local authority investment that was revealed by closer examination of the figures. The right hon. Gentleman said then:
"The emphasis of public sector housing policy now must be to meet a particular need, such as those of the elderly and the handicapped … rather than on the general provision of new houses … In future, growth must be based increasingly on the private sector and homes for sale."—[Official Report, 21 February 1980, Vol. 979, c. 667–8.]
That announcement came as a blow not only to families on council waiting lists but to private builders as well. For months before the general election last year those worthy gentlemen had littered the country with leaflets and posters opposing nationalisation of the building industry, but with the Secretary of State's statement they woke up to the realisation that their profits depend on public expenditure.
Even before his statement, in January, those gentlemen had issued a stern warning to the Secretary of State. Mr. Basil Gwyn, the chairman of the National Council of Building Material Producers had said:
"Building material producers are concerned about the possible further decline of house building in the light of the rumoured cuts in Government money for Councils' housing investment. The Government should consider the serious consequences of a substantial decline affecting the housebuilding industry and its suppliers at a time when the expected improvement in the private sector is small."
That was before the Secretary of State made his statement about housing investment. The situation has got worse since, and today it has been announced that the builders have asked the Chancellor for special help in his Budget. Mr. Ronald

991
King, the president of the House-Builders Federation, has said that
"urgent measures had to be taken if private housebuilding output was to expand and begin to fill the gaps that will be caused by the recent cuts in public sector building".
The only consistent and reliable demand for the services of these building companies is a steady programme of council house building. In building for home owners they had to depend on that Friedmanite concept called "the market". The market depends on demand, and that other Friedmanite concept known as "monetarism" has inflicted a body blow on demand. When the Labour Government were in office, demand for homes for sale was buoyant.
Last summer, soon after taking office, the Minister for Housing and Construction paid a tremendous tribute to the achievements of Anthony Crosland and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), when he said:
"Owner occupiers now account for about 55 per cent. of all households in England and Wales."
That was the result of five years of Labour Government. The Minister went on
"amongst couples in their thirties about 70 per cent. are now owner-occupiers."
Much of that revolution also took place during five years of Labour Government. Indeed, it was because of the profits that they piled up under Labour that the building industry could afford to finance its anti-nationalisation campaign. But things are now very different. The builders have today asked for a cut in minimum lending rate. When Labour was in office, MLR stood at 14 per cent. or more for 127 out of 1,887 days during which they held office. Under the Conservative Government MLR has stood at 14 per cent. or more for 272 out of the 311 days in which they have been in office. Yet it was the Prime Minister who, in opposition, declared that
"an increase in interest rates to 14 per cent. is a potential disaster for home buyers… it is the home buyer and the small business who are having to pay the price for the Government's economic failure."—[Official Report, 8 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 550.]
It was the Prime Minister who declared in those unforgettable words:
"Our plans for a 9½per cent. mortgage are absolutely unshakeable."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 951.]
992
Those words were also spoken in opposition, but in government all that the right hon. Lady could say a couple of weeks ago in the censure debate was:
"The mortgage rate had to go up in spite of our efforts to get Government borrowing down."—[Official Report, 28 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1597.]
The absolutely unshakeable Opposition spokesman had, as Prime Minister, become the poor, weak victim of circumstances.
It is no wonder that it was to the Prime Minister personally that this letter was addressed, courtesy of the "Your Letters" page of the Daily Express.
"When I voted Tory at the last election I did not expect a magic wand to be waved and for things to miraculously improve overnight. As someone said the situation would become worse before it improved. However, I did not expect to have to sell my home within eight months of Mrs. Thatcher taking over, which is what will happen now that the building society has put up its rate to 15 per cent. without extending the repayment period. Because we live in a slightly larger than average house, people assume that we are well off. But all we have is our monthly income. Our savings went years ago and with the mortgage increase coupled with the forecast of a huge rates rise there will not be enough to go round."
That letter was headed:
"Now I can't afford to keep my house. What has Maggie done to us?"
The only slim comfort for that disillusioned Tory voter and for the 5¼ million others who are buying their homes on a mortgage is that they are not alone in their misfortune. It is true that the Government have put up their mortgage repayments by a whopping 20 per cent. But if those people were council tenants they would have to pay 28 per cent. more in rent, for that is the guideline that has been laid down by the Secretary of State. It represents an increase in the coming years of £1·80 a week over the present average council rent of £6·56.
The Secretary of State is trying to pretend that that is the kind of increase that would or should have taken place under Labour. He was at it again this afternoon. In his statement last month he talked about a commitment in the previous Government's Green Paper to increased rents in line with earnings.
The Secretary of State suffers from two incorrigible tendencies and he will have to try to do something about them. The

993
first is a reckless and chronic urge to seek to mislead the House. The second tendency is, if anything, even more serious for a politician so blatantly on the make. Not only does he fail in his attempts to mislead, but the failure is too easily exposed.
The Labour Government had no commitment to increase rents in line with earnings. The foreword to the Green Paper, in any case, pointed out that it was no more than a consultative document. [Interruption.] Yes, that is what Green Papers are for. It gave no such commitment, but simply said:
"The Government consider that over a run of years rents should keep broadly in line with changes in money incomes."
When questioned by the right hon. Gentleman about the Green Paper my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar said quite flatly:
"I do not envisage that increases in rents will be higher under the future formula than they have been in the past two or three years."—[Official Report, 28 June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 252.]
In the three years previous to my right hon. Friend's statement rents had risen at something like half the rate of rise in average earnings.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to ask me whether I have figures for specific local authorities, my answer is that I am not able to produce them, but I shall be glad to give way to him.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want only to put to him the question that I put earlier to his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Is he able to give the proportion of rent to average earnings today, five years ago and 10 years ago? That would seem to get to the heart of the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a dogmatic statement of the kind of proportion of earnings that rents should represent. That is the kind of proportion that the Government are seeking to lay down. In our consultative document we indicated broad guidelines.
I have already quoted the record from 1974 to 1977. I shall now quote the
994
record from 1977 to 1979. It shows that in the two years following my right hon. Friend's statement average earnings rose by 28 per cent., while average rents rose by 14 per cent. Rents were up half as much as earnings. Rents went up half as much in two years as the Secretary of State is ordering the councils to raise them in one year. The right hon. Gentleman is forcing council rents up this year at four times the rate at which they rose in Labour's last two years. That simple fact should be noted by every one of the country's 6 million council tenants.
The Secretary of State claimed that, under Labour, council house building fell because rents did not go up enough. His policies are forcing rents up higher than ever before, but they are forcing building down lower than ever before. The higher rents that he is forcing on local authorities are not being used to finance more new houses, because there will be fewer new houses. The Secretary of State's logic is as threadbare as his policies.
It looks as though private tenants will suffer just as severely as council tenants, because the Housing Bill makes two attacks on private tenants. First, it ends rent control for the 200,000 tenants who still benefit from it. Secondly, it lays down that all 2 million private and housing association tenants should in future have their rents put up every two years, instead of every three years as at present.
It is even possible to gauge the rough scale of the rent increases for these tenants that the Government are expecting. For the financial year 1978–79 the cost of rent allowances for those tenants was £84 million. Now the Government are budgeting for an additional £72 million in rent allowances for the year 1982–83. That means that the Government are anticipating that their legislation will put up the cost of rent allowances for private and housing association tenants by 86 per cent. That is a frightening pointer to rent increases of the kind that private tenants can expect.
But none of this should come as any surprise, for Ministers at the Department of the Environment seem to be obsessed with forcing up rents. Only a few weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State delivered a tirade against Manchester city council for not putting rents up enough. That same week the Minister for Housing

995
and Construction told the House that rent controls should have been ended years ago. The Secretary of State has bitterly attacked what he describes as the manifest consequences of holding rents down artificially over long periods.
The only occupant of the Government Front Bench who does not seem to be fully persuaded of the need to increase rents is the Attorney-General. During the weekend the nation was moved to read of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's struggle against his landlord's attempt to put up his rent by more than seems justified. Labour Members commend the Attorney-General for standing up for his rights as a tenant. We are gratified that he is availing himself of the protection afforded by Labour's Rent Acts. We believe that his example will be an inspiration to countless humbler tenants who otherwise might not have the courage to resist grasping landlords. But if the Attorney-General is rightly fighting against a rent increase for himself, why will he be voting tonight in favour of rent increases for millions of others?
Millions of families in towns and cities throughout Britain are suffering as a result of the Government's housing policies. Let us pluck one such town out of the air. For the sake of argument, let us call it Southend-on-Sea. In Southend, thousands of mortgagors are numbered among those who, as the Financial Times has put it, are the losers under the Government's economic policies—those on earnings of less than twice the national average, and in particular young house buyers.
In Southend there are 17,000 private tenants who will within the next three years, face rent increases of 80 or 90 per cent., thanks to Tory Government policies. In Southend there are 8,800 council tenants who face rent increases of 28 per cent. in the next financial year because the housing department there assures me that it is abiding by the Government's formula on rent increases. To show that it means what it says, Southend council is putting up rents four weeks today by an average of £1 a week. A 13 per cent. rent increase will be the Prime Minister's Easter egg for the council tenants of Southend.
The Government prate on about their belief in cutting taxes, but their rent and
996
mortgage increases are tax increases. What is more, they are increases in direct taxation, because householders have no choice—they have to pay them. They are big increases. For council tenants over the coming year it is a tax increase of £560 million. For home owners it is even greater—a tax increase of £996 million.
That is the measure of the Government's failure in housing, and that is why we ask the House to vote for the motion tonight.
6.49 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The debate has been conspicuous for a number of things, not least the number of aspirants to the post of housing director for the borough of Southend.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), when he made his remarks about housing cuts, did not remind us of his own experience in that area. By way of balance, he might have pointed out that he was a member of a Government who reduced the housing programme by half. He was a member of a Government who reduced capital expenditure on housing by more than £2,000 million in real terms, and he was a Minister in the Department of the Environment when net capital expenditure fell by more than £900 million over two years.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman, when in that post, bore the burden of collective responsibility fairly lightly on his shoulders. I recall a remark that he made in 1974:
"It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, for obvious reasons, would like every Department to spend as little as possible. We are hoping to confound my right hon. Friend. I have gone round the country addressing special conferences of local authorities urging them to build far more houses and put my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in trouble.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 December 1974; c. 180.]
The local authorities chose not to listen to the right hon. Gentleman and the housing programme collapsed over the next four years. I am only sorry that he did not indicate that over the last four years of the Labour Government the housing programme fell every year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) made an important

997
speech which was appreciated, I believe, by the whole House. He has great experience both of local authority and housing work. I share the concern he expressed about the multiple bureaucratic processes that housing association projects have to go through. As he may know, I have set up a working party with the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations, which I hope will be reporting shortly. It is one of our major objectives to tackle and simplify that problem within the next few months.
I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about under-occupancy. I am sure that he will welcome the provisions in the tenants' charter of the Housing Bill under which all local authority tenants, housing association tenants and new town tenants will have the right both to sublet and to take in lodgers. I also agree with what he said about the need to improve the take-up of rent allowances. He may like to know that at this moment we are conducting a national campaign to improve the take-up which is running in the national newspapers and on regional television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) made an important contribution. I should be grateful if he would provide me with the details of the mansion blocks to which he referred. I should like to examine as closely as I can the position there, to see whether the service charge provisions of the Housing Bill should be reconsidered in the light of the information that he provides for me. I am grateful to him for having raised that matter.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested that it was nonsense to refer to the levels of underspend under the previous Administration. But, if we are to have a serious debate about cuts, particularly the percentages of cuts, it is important that the House should be aware of the extent to which hundreds of millions of pounds of public money went unspent on the housing programme. In the last two years of the Labour Government the housing capital programme was underspent by nearly £800 million. If that does not indicate the scope of the wastage, I do not know what does. I am aware that Opposition Members are in-
998
clined to say that it was all due to Conservative-controlled council's underspending, but I should like to give them the facts.
Let us look, for example, at what went on in certain local authorities. Let us look at the local authorities in the constituencies of the then Housing Ministers in the Department of the Environment. For example, was Tower Hamlets using every penny of the multi-million pounds that was being pushed in its direction by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)? It was not. That authority was £6·6 million underspent over those last two years. Going to the other side of London, to Brent, was that authority spending every penny of the millions that the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Frecson) was giving to it? The answer is that it certainly was not. That authority let £6·7 million go down the drain.
The background to the housing cuts about which we have heard so much today is that in the two years up to the last general election public resources were not being used, and they could not even be used in the constituencies of the Housing Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to Sheffield. I should like to give him the full background to the position there, as he specifically referred to that city. In 1978–79 Sheffield underspent by £4½ million. Was that reflected in that city's allocation for the following year? No, it was not. Up went the allocation once again. Then a remarkable thing happened. The financial profligacy of the Department of the Environment Ministers at that time was so self-evident that the Labour councillors in Sheffield felt compelled to write to the Department actually asking for their allocation to be cut. If the House has any doubt about that, I refer to the letter dated 27 March last year—less than a year ago—from the director of Housing in Sheffield to the Department of the Environment in which he said:
"The council has instructed me to write informing you that it will not require an allocation in excess of £25 million for its capital expenditure under the housing investment programme for the financial year 79–80."
That was an authority that already had an allocation of £32½ million.
The essential background to the cuts we have had to make is that there were

999
hundreds of millions of pounds raised from the taxpayers and so much money was going out that it could not be used by the local authorities.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, if this situation arises during his period as Minister for Housing, that money will be rapidly reallocated to those housing areas that badly need it.
Mr. Stanley: I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has made that point. That is one of the reasons why in this next financial year we have moved to a single block system—to ensure that local authorities have the maximum freedom to spend their allocations.
I turn now to the points made about the mortgage rate. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred to this matter. What we have not heard at any time during the debate is how the Opposition square their call for interest rates, and therefore mortgage rates, to go down with their repeated calls for virtually every item of public expenditure to be increased. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick reeled off a number of days. The days that I was hoping he would reel off were the number of days that MLR would have to stay at its present level if the public expenditure commitments of the Opposition were implemented. One cannot keep track of the number of commitments for increasing public expenditure, but in the past six months the Opposition have made commitments to increase expenditure on housing, education, social benefits, the National Health Service, steel, overseas aid and, no doubt, a great deal more.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has been doing his bit to increase the borrowing requirement and therefore further increase interest and mortgage rates. I see that he said in his speech to the Labour Party local government conference last month:
"We must reassert our reputation as the public expenditure party."
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can carry conviction by making speeches outside the House beating the drum for more public expenditure and then making speeches in the House call-
1000
ing for lower interest rates, he is deluding nobody but himself.
Much of the debate has been taken up with the problems of first-time buyers. Here the position of the Opposition is ambivalent, to put it mildly. The Opposition are wringing their hands about the problems of home owners when Labour councillors up and down the country are denying thousands of council tenants the chance to become home owners. The Opposition are complaining about housing costs when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has himself been urging Labour councils to make house purchase for council tenants as expensive as possible. This is what he said recently:
"I hope no Labour councils will anticipate the Housing Bill's passage by being prepared to sell council houses before the Bill receives Royal Assent."
That means that every council tenant will have to pay more and yet the Opposition are complaining about housing costs.
The Opposition say in their motion that it is more expensive to buy now than at any other time in our history. Yet they are committed to withdrawing access to home ownership to council tenants on a bigger scale than ever before.
I return to the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick and his comments about rents. He said —and this was particularly interesting—that the Labour Party was not committed to maintaining the increase in rents in line with earnings. But the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook said in the house on 15 January:
"We pledged ourselves—and we kept our pledge—to keep rent increases and levels of earnings increases in line."—[Official Report, 15 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1465.]
That is what he said. The only thing about that was that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct because in the period of the last Government they did not keep the increase in earnings and the increase in rents anything like in line. In fact, when the Labour Government left office rents were lower in proportion to average earnings than at any time in the past 20 years, and on the available figures they were probably lower than at any time since the Second World War.
In fact, during the term of office of the last Government we saw a massive

1001
switch in public expenditure away from capital expenditure programmes towards rent subsidies. At least one Labour Member foresaw the havoc this would cause to housing revenue accounts. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) wrote a most illuminating pamphlet entitled "Do we need Council Houses?" in which he said that this switch would "play havoc" with housing revenue accounts. One has only to look at the housing revenue accounts of certain London boroughs to see exactly what sort of havoc has been created by holding rents down and not maintaining them in line with earnings.
A most important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham on the question of empty houses. He is right, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to do everything possible to bring empty houses back into use. I must refer the right hon. Member for Spark-brook to the fact that there is a conspicuous number of authorities—mainly Labour—which have very large numbers of empty houses. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will approach the Labour leaders in those London boroughs which, on their own figures, have more than 2,000 empty dwellings. I hope that he will approach the Labour leader in Camden about the 2,263 vacant dwellings there and the Labour leader in Southwark about the 3,024 empty houses there. Further, in Lambeth there are 3,250 empty houses and in Islington there are 3,519.
The debate has brought out vividly the inconsistency in the Opposition's approach to the question of housing costs. They have complained about mortgage
interest rates, yet they have made insistent calls for increased public expenditure which can only send mortgage rates still higher. They have complained about housing costs being the highest ever when Labour councillors are adding massively to those costs by imposing the most swingeing increases in rates. They have complained about the rent guidelines, but having spent five years in Government they did not have the courage to implement their own policies. They have complained about the shortage of rented accommodation when they have done nothing whatever to revive the private rented sector and they have halved the programme in the public sector. They have complained about insufficient funds, yet they have refused to add to their allocations by selling council houses. They claim that it is difficult for people to buy houses—and I do not disguise in any way the 15 per cent. mortgage interest rate—but council house sales are running at an all-time record level, the number of local authority mortgages in the last six months was actually higher than for the last four years and some 200,000 more people have become home owners since we came into office. The Opposition say that they are concerned about the problems of first-time buyers, yet their one and only housing policy commitment has been to say that they will withdraw the right to buy from 6 million council tenants.
I suggest to the House that if ever an Opposition motion deserves to be thrown out, it is this one.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 309.

Division No. 218]

AYES

[7.04 pm

Abse, Leo

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Conlan, Bernard

Adams, Allen

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Cook, Robin F.

Allaun, Frank

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Cowans, Harry

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Crowther, J. S.

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Buchan, Norman

Cryer, Bob

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ashton, Joe

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

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

Campbell, Ian

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Davidson, Arthur

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Canavan, Dennis

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beith, A. J.

Cant, R. B.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Carmichael, Nell

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Bidwell, Sydney

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Deakins, Eric

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Cartwright, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Dempsey, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Dewar, Donald

Bradley, Tom

Coleman, Donald

Dixon, Donald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Dobson, Frank

Dormand, Jack

Kerr, Russell

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Douglas, Dick

Kinnock, Neil

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lambie, David

Robertson, George

Dubs, Alfred

Lamborn, Harry

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lamond, James

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Dunnelt, Jack

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, J. W.

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Leighton, Ronald

Roper, John

Eadle, Alex

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Eastham, Ken

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Ryman, John

English, Michael

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Sandelson, Neville

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Sever, John

Evans, John (Newton)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Sheerman, Barry

Ewing, Harry

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

Faulds, Andrew

McElhone, Frank

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Field, Frank

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Short, Mrs Renée

Fitch, Alan

McKeivey, William

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Depiford)

Flannery, Martin

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Maclennan, Robert

Silverman, Julius

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McMahon, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Snape, Peter

Ford, Ben

McNally, Thomas

Soley, Clive

Forrester, John

McNamara, Kevin

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

McWilliam, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Foulkes, George

Magee, Bryan

Stallard, A. W.

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Marks, Kenneth

Steel, Rt Hon David

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

Stoddart, David

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Stott, Roger

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Strang, Gavin

George, Bruce

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)

Straw, Jack

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Ginsburg, David

Maxton, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Golding, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Gourlay, Harry

Meacher, Michael

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Graham, Ted

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mikardo, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Tilley, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Tinn, James

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Torney, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Mitchell, R. c. (Soton Itchen)

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Watkins, David

Haynes, Frank

Morton, George

Weetch, Ken

Heffer, Eric S.

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Wellbeloved, James

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Newens, Stanley

Welsh, Michael

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Home Robertson, John

Ogden, Eric

White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

Homewood, William

O'Halloran, Michael

Whitehead, Phillip

Hooley, Frank

O'Neill, Martin

Whitlock, Williiam

Horam, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd

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

Paimer, Arthur

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Huckfield, Les

Park, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed

Parker. John

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parry, Robert

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Pendry, Tom

Winnick, David

Janner, Hon Greville

Penhallgon, David

Woodall, Alec

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Woolmer, Kenneth

John, Brynmor

Prescott, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Wright, Sheila

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Race, Reg

Young, David (Bolton East)

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Richardson, Jo

Mr. Hugh McCartney and

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Mr. Terry Davis.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Aitken, Jonathan

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Bright, Graham

Alexander, Richard

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Brinton, Tim

Alison, Michael

Best, Keith

Brittan, Leon

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Ancram, Michael

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Arnold, Tom

Biggs-Davison, John

Brotherton, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Blackburn, John

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Blaker, Peter

Browne, John (Winchester)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Body, Richard

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Bryan, Sir Paul

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Buck, Antony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Budgen, Nick

Bell, Sir Ronald

Bowden, Andrew

Bulmer, Esmond

Bendall, Vivian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Burden, F. A.

1004

1005

Butcher, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Parris, Matthew

Butler, Hon Adam

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Hooson, Tom

Patten, John (Oxford)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hordern, Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Percival, Sir Ian

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Channon, Paul

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pink, R. Bonner

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Pollock, Alexander

Churchill, W. S.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Porter, George

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Suttton)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Jessel, Toby

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Cockeram, Eric

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Proctor, K. Harvey

Colvin, Michael

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Cope, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Raison, Timothy

Cormack, Patrick

Kershaw, Anthony

Rathbone, Tim

Corrie, John

Kimball, Marcus

Pees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Costain, A. P.

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Critchley, Julian

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Tim

Crouch, David

Knox, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, Julian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lang, Ian

Rifkind, Malcolm

Dorrell, Stephen

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff V)

Dover, Denshore

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lawson, Nigel

Rossi, Hugh

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Lee, John

Rost, Peter

Durant, Tony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Royle, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Scott, Nicholas

Eggar, Timothy

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Elliott, Sir William

Loveridge, John

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Emery, Peter

Luce, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Eyre, Reginald

Lyell, Nicholas

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Falrbairn, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Macfarlane, Neil

Shersby, Michael

Faith, Mrs Sheila

MacGregor, John

Silvester, Fred

Fell, Anthony

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Sims, Roger

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Speed, Keith

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McQuarrie, Albert

Speller, Tony

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Madel, David

Spence, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Major, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Forman, Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sproat, Iain

Fox, Marcus

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Squire, Robin

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mates, Michael

Stainton, Keith

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Mather, Carol

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fry, Peter

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Stanley, John

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Mawby, Ray

Steen, Anthony

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stevens, Martin

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mayhew, Patrick

Stokes, John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mellor, David

Stradling Thomas, J.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tapsell, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Tebbit, Norman

Gorst, John

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gow, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Gray, Hamish

Molyneaux, James

Thompson, Donald

Greenway, Harry

Monro, Hector

Thorne, Neil (llford South)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Montgomery, Fergus

Thornton, Malcolm

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Moore, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Grist, Ian

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Trippier, David

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mudd, David

Trotter, Neville

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

Murphy, Christopher

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Myles, David

Jiggers, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Waddington, David

Hannam, John

Needham, Richard

Wakeham, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Waldegrave, Hon William

Hastings, Stephen

Neubert, Michael

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Newton, Tony

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Hawksley, Warren

Normanton, Tom

Wall, Patrick

Hayhoe, Barney

Nott, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Heddle, John

Onslow, Cranley

Walters, Dennis

Henderson, Barry

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Ward, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Osborn, John

Warren, Kenneth

Hicks, Robert

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Watson, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Weils, John (Maidstone)

Hill, James

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

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

1006

1007

Wheeler, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Wolfson, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Whitney, Raymond

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchan' and

Wickenden, Keith

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mr. Anthony Berry

Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.
Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the measures that the Government are taking to bring public expenditure on housing into line with what the country can afford, to encourage the release of more privately rented accommodation, and to extend home ownership to a greater number of people than ever before.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1980–81 (NAVY), VOTE A
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to the Order this day,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1981 a number not exceeding 78,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service.
Question, agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the remaining Questions which he was directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraph (II) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1980–81 (ARMY), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1981 a number not exceeding 180,700 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 60,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 83,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 10,000 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.
put and agreed to.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1980–81 (AIR), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1981 a number not exceeding 95,000 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number
1008
not exceeding 10,775 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 1,000 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
put and agreed to.

DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1979–80
Question,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £68,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1980, for expenditure on Defence Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 436.
put and agreed to.

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1979–80
Question,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £769,071,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1980 for expenditure on Civil Services as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 437.
put and agreed to.

CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (CLASS XIII A) 1979–80
Question,
That a further supplementary sum not exeeding £926,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1980 for expenditure on House of Commons: Administration, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 438.
put and agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1978–79
Question,
That a sum not exceeding £60,375,250·04 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil and Defence Services for the year ended 31st March 1979, as set out in the House of Commons Paper No. 435.
put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the four foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. Peter Rees.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
Mr. Nigel Lawson accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1979 and 1980; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1561]

IMMIGRATION RULES
7.20 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC., 1979–80, No. 394), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20 February, be disapproved.
The genesis of the debate is yet again the notorious statement by the Prime Minister in 1978, when she was Leader of the Opposition, about this country's being swamped by immigration from the New Commonwealth. Shortly after that emotive remark I showed from the statistics that happened to be published at the time that immigration from the Commonwealth was falling. The fall is a secular, long-term movement. It still goes on, as the quarterly figures show.
That is confirmed by the figures published by the Home Office last weekend, which show that fewer Commonwealth citizens were accepted for settlement in Britain in 1979 than in 1978. There were slightly more than 33,000 Commonwealth settlers—13 per cent. fewer than in 1978.
After our concern over the years to talk about immigration from the Commonwealth, it is interesting to note that the figures show—they are worth looking at at a later date—that immigration from outside the Commonwealth is increasing. The total number of immigrants accepted for settlement was 4 per cent. lower than in 1978. The number of people from Pakistan and the New Commonwealth countries continued to drop. The figures were the lowest total since 1974, continuing a decline that began in 1977. The number of those accepted for settlement on arrival fell by 25 per cent. Among those accepted after a time limit, there was the same pattern of a drop of New Commonwealth and Pakistan citizens and again a rise of non-EEC foreign nationals.
The figures published last weekend follow the same pattern as I dealt with nearly two years ago. The trend has been going on for a long time. So at the very beginning of this debate one thing is clear: not only was the Prime Minister wrong in 1978; she is still wrong. The figures for immigration from the Commonwealth are continuing to fall, and immigration from the Commonwealth is largely of dependants.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The right hon. Gentleman has often misquoted my right lion. Friend the Prime Minister on the question of swamping. Did she not say in fact that the people of this country feared that they would be swamped, and is not that quite different from the alleged factual basis that the right hon. Gentleman now gives for his assertions?
Mr. Rees: I heard the right hon. Lady. If the Leader of the Opposition talked in that way in the run-up to an election, when immigration and race were good vote-catching subjects, that is what she meant. She meant "swamping". If the right hon. Lady likes to say that she did not mean it, that will be one thing, but she will not.
Mr. John Stokes: It is true.
Mr. Rees: The right hon. Lady talked about swamping. I shall continue with the argument. She said that in this country people felt that they were being swamped.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: "Feared".
Mr. David Ennals: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, had not meant that she agreed with the fears that she expressed she would have gone on to say "This is not true. We are not being swamped"? But she did nothing of the sort.
Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The right hon. Lady said it, and however she put it, she meant it. We were in a pre-election period.
It is important to get the figures right. There is one other aspect of the statistics leading to the secular decline that has gone on for 14 or 15 years. It was first seen in the White Paper of 1965. I refer to the number of work permits issued every year. In those days there were work permits and a different sort of document for Commonwealth citizens. Every year the numbers became smaller and smaller. That meant that, inexorably, primary immigration from the Commonwealth would fall.
1012
Just after the rules were first published a Minister at the Department of Employment spoke of the changes that were to take place with regard to the number of work permits. In terms of numbers, that is far more important than what is in the rules. The argument about the rules is not about numbers; the numbers are very small. Our argument is that it is not worth the candle to give the community here the impression that the changes are affecting numbers to any degree.
Sir Ronald Bell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that he was mistaken in saying that it was only those who came in on work permits who were primary immigrants. All those who came in from East Africa were, for this purpose, primary immigrants.
Mr. Rees: I did not say that it was the only reason. I said that it was a major reason, because primary immigration was originally spawned by people who came here to work in the days before there were work permits for those from the Commonwealth. It was a different system. I believe that they had what were called Commonwealth vouchers or work vouchers.
The numbers that have come in in recent years have been dependants. It is something that the pledge on dependants given by the last Labour Government is not being broken by the new Government. I praise them for that. That would have been the worst thing to do, whatever my argument is about dealing with fiancés.
We have heard this debate before. There is no point in going over the same ground, but there are some important points to raise tonight. If it were only that the present Prime Minister talked about swamping in the way that she did in an election atmosphere, that would have been one thing, but the Conservative Party talked about having a register and a quota. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) never forgets that promise. He raises it from time to time, as does the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who, in the debate when I quoted the statistics, asked how I could give an assurance that immigration would go on in that way. I ask him to look at the figures for last Friday. The trend is going on all the time.
Mr. Nick Budgen: As the Tory Party's promise was that there would be a clear end to immigration as we have known it, and as the measures that we are considering will reduce immigration by only about 3,000 or 4,000 at the most, they can be only the first of many very important restrictions that we can expect in future years.
Mr. Rees: We are now hearing the authentic voice that speaks for the context in which the swamping remark was made. I do not even believe that the figure is 3,000 or 4,000. I doubt whether more than about 50 old people, in regard to whom the rules have been changed since December, will be affected. The effect is very small. Our argument is that the change is having a small effect but that it is designed to look as if it were much larger.
The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and Reigate know that other promises were made about a register and a quota. The Franks committee looked at the question of a register when the Conservatives were in opposition. They did not have to go to Conservative Central Office to obtain a view on the register. The committee considered that in terms of a fall in the numbers the question of the register and the quota was irrelevant.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the numbers that will be affected by the new rules are very small. Does he wish it was a far larger number? Will he speculate on what he thinks the British people as a whole would wish?
Mr. Rees: I do not. I have made this argument many times. I made it in the run-up to the general election. I have no doubt that in many parts it was an unpopular argument. The then Opposition wanted a register and a quota, but it was part of the aura of the times, into which the words about "feeling rather swamped" were put.
These proposals have been dropped, in the face of reality. Ministers realised the implications of them when they came to office. The facts were set out in the then Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on race relations in July 1978. It was not even a question of
1014
the then Opposition waiting to get into government. The facts and the arguments were there before the election.
Mr. Budgen: What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman that the other proposals to which he refers have been dropped by the Government?
Mr. Rees: Just now, a number of Government supporters were putting their interpretation on what the Price Minister said when she was in opposition. I put my interpretation on what has happened during this Government's first nine months in office. I lay an even bet that these two proposals will not see the light of day.
To make the minimum look large is the Government's policy. It is on that minimum number, which the Opposition think is the wrong way to set about it if the Government want to do something—and we think they should not—that I am concentrating my remarks.
We are left with the proposals on fiancés, and to those I shall return. But first let me deal with some of the other changes announced by the Government.
I refer to the proposals for widows over 65 and grandparents. On 4 December they were to be admitted only if they were wholly or mainly dependent on sons and daughters settled in the United Kingdom, provided they had no relatives in their own countries and that they had a standard of living substantially below that of their own countries.
I said that given the fact that they were reasonably required to be in receipt of funds from their families here it was impossible for them to have a standard of living substantially below that of their own countries.
There was no evidence of abuse of this part of the rules. My view and that of my hon. Friends and others in the Department was that it was not easy under the existing rules to bring this group of dependants here. There was no traffic in grannies and grandpas from Asia to this country.
The Government have looked at it, and the right hon. Gentleman said in his written answer of 20 February:
"We undertook in the debate to reconsider the changes proposed in the qualifications for entry of elderly parents and grandparents. There seems to us to be force in the argument

1015
that there would be great difficulty in some circumstances in showing that an applicant was both being supported by children in the United Kingdom and enjoying a standard of living below that of his own country. I have therefore removed the latter requirement. It will still, however, apply, as now, to more distant relatives, and to parents and grandparents under the age of 65, except widowed mothers."
That is it. The one that we were concerned about a few months ago to all intents and purposes has been ended. The Government have seen the force of the argument, and they have changed their minds about it.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only his observations that influenced the Government? It was also representations from such august bodies as the Women's Advisory Council of the Conservative Party, which pointed out the inhumanities that this would lead to.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that welcome though the changes are they still leave a situation where, even in the most extreme and compassionate circumstances, if people are not able to prove that they are living below the standard of living in their own country—disabled people, for example—they will not be able to come here? This hardship is very substantial for a few individuals. It will not affect the numbers, but it will create a great deal of sadness.
Mr. Rees: On this point about the interpretation of the words, in view of what the Government have done it is important for the House to be told the full significance of the change in words following what Ministers have said.
At the same time, I raise the matter of students. The draft proposal stated that students would have to show that they were able to maintain and accommodate themselves without working in Britain. There was a ban on spouses working to maintain students. In the written answer to which I referred the right hon. Gentleman said:
"It has also been argued that our proposals to prohibit from working the wives and children of students and of people allowed to stay in approved employment could severely affect the prospects of students and unnecessarily deter people whose scarce qualifications or skills make their presence here desirable. We accept this argument and the rules will accordingly not be changed on this point."
1016
We are glad that the Government have seen lit to change that as well.
With regard to au pairs, the Government have changed their mind about the age limit. My criticism at the time, which I discussed with my hon. Friend who had the day-to-day control of these matters, was that apparently there was abuse from some Eastern countries and so the new rules said that we could have au pairs from Western countries, Israel and Turkey, but not from certain Eastern countries.
If there was abuse, the way to deal with it would have been to deal with the abuse from the country concerned, not in this way. Much as I am glad that there is this relaxation, it does not meet the point raised by the Opposition during the debate.
I welcome the other changes with regard to applications to remain for employment from those admitted as visitors or students or for some other temporary purposes.
The Government state:
"We have, however, ensured that it does not debar the employment on completion of their training of nurses and midwives at hospitals in this country, provided that the training was not financed by an international scholarship agency or by their home Government."
What is the relevance of that last part? If someone comes here quite properly to study and work as a nurse and has not come through a Government scheme, why should not that person be treated in exactly the same way as those who come through some more formal method? I suppose that such a person could be described as exercising private enterprise, as opposed to coming through her State, or an international organisation. I hope that the Government will look at that.
On the last two changes, the Government said:
"The drafting of the provisions about refugees has been improved."—[Official Report, 20 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 187–9.]
I am sure that that is right. It is a bald statement of which those of us without the ability to question those who recommend this sort of thing do not know the full import. It would be useful to know.
I also welcome the section in which the Government undertook to look again at writers and artists, and the proposal to prohibit them from taking employment.

1017
Although we shall not win on the point about which we feel strongly, we see how debating the draft rules in advance of their being put into statutory form has enabled the Government to think again on these issues. On most of them we are glad that the Government have done so.
I come back to the proposals in respect of husbands and fiancés. There is no change in respect of wives and fiancées, because the rights of men are entrenched in statute law. The Government were unable to do anything about that without altering primary legislation. I shall return to that in a moment.
We made clear our opposition to these proposals when the Secretary of State made his statement on 14 November. We opposed them in December. We still reject this section of the rules. When we return to office we shall treat men and women in the same way. We do not accept the Government's proposals, and we shall revoke these rules because we feel strongly about them.
What is the present situation as a result of the changes in the draft rules? The Government continue to treat arranged marriages as an abuse. The more I read and re-read the debate in December the more I reject the view of the cultural habits of Asians which talks about arranged marriages as though they were an abuse. It flies in the face of the facts as we know them to be, especially in the Asian community.
In 1978 I took steps that were not universally approved to deal with marriages of convenience. Where there is a marriage of convenience, the Government have the power. If it does not work well enough for them it must be clear to them that no one on the Opposition Benches is in favour of those who come into this country by means of a marriage of convenience. However, the normal arranged marriage is not an abuse.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Rees: There will be only one Front Bench speaker from this side, and I shall wind up briefly at the end. This is a chance for everyone to speak. I have given way two or three times, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Why are the Government acting in this way? The numbers involved are small.
1018
Is it as much as 2,000 a year? By the nature of the problem the numbers are falling as Asian girls find their husbands in this country. Whatever else is happening, even in the Asian families, with their strong community ties, more and more they want to choose their husbands in this country.
So the figure is about 2,000–
Mr. Budgen: It is 3,000 or 4,000.
Mr. Rees: I believe that it is less. It is bound to alter. If numbers are the Government's concern it is not a long-term problem, but it is a family problem. A girl born in this country of Pakistani parents has no problem. Her sister, born a year or more previously in the country of origin, will be dealt with differently. Men of all nationalities are dealt with in a different way, so brothers and sisters will be dealt with differently. There is discrimination within a family and discrimination between male and female. Still, because of the rules of the EEC, a German girl or a French girl, for example, who is married to an Asian can bring him into this country.
As for making changes in the nationality law of this country—we do not have citizenship in the true sense of the term—the Government have promised a White Papex on nationality law. We can return to that matter next Session. A new law in this respect, which, incidentally, will be very complicated, will not sweep away all our problems. The quicker that our citizenship law is made comparable with that in other countries the more logical it will be.
The matter that we are discussing is an example of illogicality, because we are treating the men under statute law and the women under the discretionary rules of the Secretary of State. The. Government have made changes in the rules affecting fiancées to the advantage of those born here—black and white, I accept— and of those with one parent born here. Nevertheless, in this respect the rules are still racist and they are sexist. The racial aspect is now stronger than it was before.
I referred in December to a view that had been expressed a day or two previously in an article in The Sunday Times:
"There is no serious doubt that the new immigration rules are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

1019
That is easy to write, but that is the view.
I also pointed out then that the Government, in the other place, were at least considering whether to enshrine the convention in our law. What a curious situation, that they are considering making it part of statute law at a time when, to many people, it looks as if they are breaking the spirit at least of the convention.
Now that the first report of the Select Committee on home affairs is before the House we should have a statement from the Attorney-General. The evidence given to the Committee by many eminent jurists leads to the conclusion that the rules would almost certainly be in breach of articles 8 and 14 of the convention. Perhaps the Government do not agree about that. Perhaps it is not of great concern to them, but we have subscribed to the convention and all that goes with it.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What about freedom of association in the unions?
Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady has trade unions on the brain. Tonight, we are not talking about unions.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We are talking about human rights.
Mr. Rees: We are talking about immigration.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman said "and all that goes with it".
Mr. Rees: I imagine that in Strasbourg these double-doing MPs can do what they like.
In any event, I ask, as The Times did in a leader on 6 March:
"Is it really necessary for the British Government to show itself to be in deliberate breach of its moral and legal international undertakings for such a puny result?"
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr Archer), the former Solicitor-General, will be able to speak later in the debate, because this is an important matter that we ought to consider—particularly since the Select Committee on home affairs has published the evidence, even if, for its own reasons, it did not come to any conclusion.
The genesis of these rules lay in preelection promises. We have heard it all
1020
before. In a by-election in the East End of London in 1905 the Conservative candidate said:
"The Radicals, by their obstruction to the Aliens Bill, are evidently glad to see foreigners who are criminals, who suffer from loathsome diseases, who are turned out in disgust by their fellow countrymen, who are paupers, who fill our streets with profligacy and disorder. The Radical welcomes them all."
The Jewish people who came in at that time now occupy high places—but that was said at that time.
I believe that the same will happen with those coming now—the black British—in the course of time. It will go on a long time, because there are problems, but what we should be talking about is not this miserable couple of thousand, simply in an attempt to make it look different. We are told that the Tories are carrying out their election promises, when many of them know that they are not. We should be talking about the inner cities, about programmes to replace section 11, and measures to deal with race relations problems. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against these rules again tonight.
7.47 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): On 4 December, after a very full debate, the House approved the draft immigration rules embodied in the White Paper "Proposals for the revision of the Immigration Rules". During that debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I said that in response to views expressed in the House and outside we were prepared to consider a number of changes. This we did, and the final version of the new rules embodies certain significant alterations. Nevertheless, the rules are substantially as set out in the White Paper. They were published on 20 February and came into effect on 1 March. Tonight we ask the House to resist the motion, which would disapprove the rules.
My right hon. Friend accepts that we have only limited time, and although he intends to wind up, he will do so only briefly so as to allow more hon. Members to speak.
During the debate on 4 December, my right hon. Friend and I set out the reasons why we believed that new rules were necessary and what our objectives

1021
were. We came to power last May committed to a firm immigration control, in the interests not least of good community relations. We believe that, if we could end the persistent fears about the level of immigration, we could relieve some of the tensions that occasionally erupt. We were also concerned to check some of the loopholes that unquestionably exist—for example, in the way in which some people, nominally on temporary visits, seem able to extend their stay in this country far beyond what seems reasonable—and we wanted to start to get to grips with the problem of overstaying. We set out, therefore, to achieve a tighter control, but we have aimed to do this in a way which would be reasonable and based on common sense.
Overall, we believe that the rules embodied in the White Paper got the pattern right. Nevertheless, as I have said, there are certain changes which we have felt it right to make since then, and I should like to say a word about these.
First, we have made reasonable, and indeed generous, transitional arrangements. The new rules will preserve the position of those who had made their applications on or before 14 November 1979, the date on which we published the White Paper. I am sure that the House will readily accept this. It seemed to the Government that it would be wrong for people who had applied before the Government's intentions had been published to be affected by the changes. This is especially so when applicants have waited many months to have their cases considered.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the 27,000 people who are in the queue on the subcontinent are fiancés who would be able to exercise their right under the transitional provisions?
Mr. Raison: I cannot give the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) a number. It would be difficult to do so.
The provisions also safeguard those who before the new rules took effect had an entry clearance, or a limited leave to enter or remain in certain categories. Thus, for example, a business man who had already been permitted to enter for 12 months under the old rules would have his claim for a further 12 months
1022
considered under those rules. We have ensured that where a refusal is made under the old rules any appeal will also be decided under those rules, and again this is only fair.
Secondly, we have modified our proposals relating to husbands and fiancés in the two respects which we promised during the debate on 4 December. The general approach remains unaltered.
But where the qualifying conditions are met an entry clearance will—not may—be issued to the husband or fiancé provided that the woman is a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies who was born here or—and this is an addition—that one of her parents was born here.
We had, of course, a good many representations on this point and there seemed force in the argument that people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies with close links here should not be penalised simply because they were born when their parents happened to be abroad. There was a strong and natural preference for the rules to confer entitlements in this area and not leave cases to the exercise of discretion. Let me add that there will still be scope for the exercise of discretion outside the rules where a woman citizen's connection with this country is very substantial—for example, by descent from people in Crown service overseas—but where she does not meet the formal requirements.
Thirdly we have reviewed, as we said we would, our proposed changes on elderly parents, grandparents and widowed mothers. We have accepted the force of the argument—the so-called "Catch 22"—that in some circumstances there would be great difficulty in showing both that the parent or grandparent was being supported by children in the United Kingdom and that he or she would suffer a standard of living substantially below that of his or her own country by remaining overseas. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said this latter requirement has therefore been removed.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is still a "Catch 22" situation, since a relative below the age of 65—who is in exceptional compassionate circumstances and dependent upon someone in this country—is not

1023
likely to be living below the standard of living of his own country?
Mr. Raison: This is the position that obtained under the previous Government and we are making no change.
Our proposals to prohibit from working the wives and children of students and of people allowed to stay in approved employment have been dropped. We accept that the prospects of many students could have been severely affected and that those with scarce skills or special qualifications of value to this country—-such as doctors—might have been discouraged from coming here by a ban on their dependants taking employment. Under the new rules therefore there will be no such prohibition unless, as formerly, the head of the household is himself not allowed to work.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we have relaxed the proposed upper age limit for the entry of Commonwealth working holidaymakers and au pairs. This would rise from 25 to 27 to take account of those who extend their studies and therefore are not able to travel abroad until later on in their twenties. Let me add on au pair girls that in confining them to Western Europe —including Turkey, Cyprus and Malta—we have done no more than the previous Government did with resident domestics. There were signs that as the resident domestic route into this country was blocked, those who had used it were starting to switch to au pair status although they were not in any sense what is normally meant by au pairs.
We have also modified the provisions which govern applications to remain for employment from those admitted as visitors or students or for some other temporary purpose in one respect. The embargo on visitors or students staying on to take employment is strict. But we need to ensure that nurses and midwives trained here are not prevented on completion of their training from taking employment at hospitals in this country. They will therefore remain able to do so, unless their studies were financed by their home Governments or an international sponsorship agency in the expectation that they would return to use their skills in their own country.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman got this the wrong way round. However,
1024
I hope that this gives him the answer that he is looking for and that he will agree that what we propose is reasonable. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the improvements to the drafting of the provisions relating to refugees to take account of points made by the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have already made significant changes, but this one is principally a technical point. The rule now refers to the 1967 protocol as well as the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.
have already made significant changes, since publication of the White Paper. They show our willingness to consider reasonable points of detail while maintaining our general determination to achieve reductions in the overall level of immigration. I believe they are sensible. I acknowledge that there is still sharp argument about our provisions on husbands and fiancés but the Government's case for making these amendments is strong.
As the House knows, the new rules will enable us to refuse an application from a man whose marriage has been contracted with admission or settlement here in view or where the parties do not share an intention to live together permanently, or where they have not met. Those are surely reasonable requirements.
Next, where there is no cause to believe that the marriage has been entered into for the purposes of immigration, our changes confine the right to bring in a husband or fiancé to women citizens who were born here or one of whose parents was born here.
Miss Joan Lestor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what will be the position of adopted girls bearing in mind that many girls born abroad have been adopted by people now resident in this country? Will the birthplace of their natural parents determine whether they may bring in a fiancé or husband or will it be the birthplace of the people by whom those girls were adopted?
Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) when he replies. These women are the ones who are likely to suffer most by having to go abroad to live with their husbands.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: In dealing with the question of fiancés the hon. Gentleman earlier gave the reasons why changes had been made. Is the House to take it that the Government have given no weight whatever to the arguments put forward to the effect that we are in breach of the European Convention?
Mr. Raison: It is a pity that I gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) because I will be dealing with those arguments later in my speech. The women to whom I have just referred have the most substantial connection with this country. We have deliberately defined this connection as far as we can in the rules to avoid doubt and to leave as little as possible to discretion.
The context in which we have made these rules is important. It is a widely held view that primary immigration to this country should come to a halt. This was the firm view of the all-party Select Committee on race relations and immigration which reported on immigration in the Session before last. With substantial unemployment and pressure on our facilities and services it is right that immigration should be kept to a reasonable minimum. The trouble is that we know that through the operation of the old marriage rules we were having to accept an appreciable number of men each year who had married girls settled here not for the usual reasons but because this was their only way of coming to this country. We do not have to accept this. Indeed, it weakens the system of immigration control.
No one can seriously question the need for an effective immigration control. It is dictated by such factors as the unemployment situation, the capacity of our social services to cope with extra commitments and by the need to ensure good community relations.
But even in a situation demanding a reduction in immigration, the United Kingdom has accepted two major commitments. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South acknowledged that—and we continue to accept them. The first is that the wives, with minor children of men already settled in the United Kingdom should be permitted to join them here. Second, there is a special responsibility for those United Kingdom
1026
passport holders subject to immigration control who are in difficulties in their countries of residence. Of course the United Kingdom has continued to play its full part in the resettlement of refugees.
It has been said that the control of immigration statistics published last week demonstrate a continuing decline in immigration. But not a great deal can be read into the 4 per cent. fall overall from the 1978 figures. The numbers are still large in absolute terms, and the underlying pressure to settle here remains high. In 1979 the decline in the number of entry clearances granted reflects, at least in part, the reduced number of applications processed. This reduction took place in those posts which have had to concentrate resources on shortening the delays faced by applicants appealing against decisions to refuse them entry clearance.
It must be said that there is great pressure to come here from many parts of the world. We have to look to the rules to control this pressure and to ensure that those who come are those whose case is strongest. The new rules on husbands and fiancés are just one example of this continuing process. The policy of restricting entry for employment to people with scarce skills was clearly being undermined by the settlement, in each year since 1975, of more men on marriage than were allowed to settle on completion of four years in approved employment. In other words, the principal means of primary male immigration has become marriage rather than employment.
This problem of husbands and fiancés is something which has of course troubled successive Governments. That is why the Labour Party, with the Leader of the Opposition as Home Secretary, changed the rules in 1969 to ban husbands and male fiancés. That is why it had doubts and misgivings in 1974, before it eventually decided to change the rules back to let husbands and fiancés come in. And that is why it was obliged to change the rules again in 1977 to deal with marriages of convenience. Despite this change, marriage is still being used as a means of securing migration.
These arguments do not apply with the same force to women entering the United Kingdom to join husbands. In the main they join husbands who are in the position of having the prime responsibility for providing for their families.

1027
Frequently the husband has lived in the United Kingdom for many years, leaving his wife and any children behind in their own country. Men entering the country to join women settled here are, however, usually part of a quite different pattern of behaviour. They are not joining the family's breadwinner but expect, and are expected to make, a major contribution themselves to the earnings of their new family unit.
It has been said that the rules are racialist in intent. But they contain no provisions based on racial distinctions and I reject the allegation that they are racially discriminatory. The opening paragraphs of section one and section two of the rules expressly prohibit this. Broadly speaking, people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan constitute a significant proportion of those granted settlement each year-60 per cent. in 1978 and between 60 per cent. and 75 per cent. in earlier years. Those entering from these areas will continue to be a significant part of the whole, and will probably remain the majority, whatever restrictions are placed on the entry of men for marriage. There are, therefore, no grounds whatever for alleging that the motive for these restrictions is racial prejudice. The Government's aim is to prevent the use of marriage as a means of securing settlement in the United Kingdom.
It is true that a great many people seeking to enter the United Kingdom claim to do so under marriages arranged in accordance with Asian culture and traditions. But we do not on that account accept that the requirement that the parties should have met is discrimination on racial or other grounds. Our understanding is that the customs attaching to Asian arranged marriages are not entrenched in a rigid and unchangeable code.
The husband or fiancé of a woman whom he has not met cannot reasonably claim that he has a right to enter another country to live permanently with her there. It is difficult to see how refusal to permit entry in such circumstances could cause hardship.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that wives must have met their husbands and fiancés. If he follows
1028
through that logic, should he not also prevent husbands from bringing in their wives if they have not met?
Mr. Raison: If the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) had followed the argument and listened to the debate in December he would know that whatever one might wish to do, under the law governing immigration and nationality that is not possible. We are not changing the law, we are changing the rules. We have given firm pledges in that respect. We have not time in this Session to change the primary legislation. We propose changes in the rules. That has been done on a number of previous occasions.
It seems to be assumed that our approach to husbands and fiancés is altogether exceptional. But that is not so. My understanding is that France admits husbands only if special considerations render their exclusion undesirable. West Germany does not permit the entry of fiancés. Bangladesh does not admit husbands for settlement, nor does India, except that a Commonwealth citizen can join his wife indefinitely as a visitor. In Sweden husbands are allowed to join their wives there only if they have lived together for some time. Switzerland has no right of entry for husbands. We are far from being unique in our proposals.
I turn now to the first report from the Home Affairs Committee. It is entitled "Proposed New Immigration Rules and the European Convention on Human Rights". It is useful to have assembled in this document the principal arguments put to the Committee on the compatibility of the rules with the convention. As the House knows, the Committee refrained from passing judgment on the issue.
The Government's general position is clear. As we made plain during the course of the debate on 4 December, we have considered collectively the full implications of these proposals, including the question about international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that we have strong arguments with which to justify these proposals if they are challenged.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexley-heath): Does my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming weight of expert

1029
legal opinion is against the Government's detailed proposals? Does it not behove a party which claims to be the party of law and order and which claims to give particular weight to international obligations to move with great caution in this area?
Mr. Raison: I cannot accept that the overwhelming weight of legal advice is directed in that way. In a sense we are moving into uncharted waters. Arguments on both sides have been expressed, for instance in the other place. I accept that only one member of the House of Lords was called before the Select Committee, but another distinguished lawyer in the other place argues in the opposite direction. I cannot agree with the assumption made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).
It has of course been said that we should now detail all those arguments. I think, however, that an examination of the evidence to the Home Affairs Committee will show that it is not as simple as that. The precise arguments depend very much on the circumstances of particular cases. There is an almost complete absence of relevant precedents which have gone as far as the European Court and from which points of binding judicial principle can be gleaned. On the whole it can be said that the petitioners against our immigration control are not particularly successful. The main exception cited, the East African Asians' case, was, apart from being based on exceptional facts, not upheld by the Committee of Ministers.
The precise nature of the arguments is thus impossible to predict unless and until a case arises. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath will take that on board. If a case did arise, there might be good grounds for denying at the start that any prima facie breach of the convention had taken place. But if it did come to a question of justifying the imposition of controls against husbands and fiancés on general policy grounds, there can be little doubt that we shall have powerful arguments to deploy. Some indication of these arguments has been given in these debates. What I clearly could not be expected to do here is set out the case that
1030
might be deployed to deal with a hypothetical action.
The Government have all along made perfectly plain their determination to restrict immigration to acceptable levels. Can the Opposition say the same? An interesting document emerged last month from the Labour Party entitled "Labour Party discussion document on Citizenship and Immigration". I assume that this document is not yet Labour Party policy. It would be surprising if it were, since nothing on the lines proposed was so much as hinted at during that party's recent term of office. But it presumably commands a degree of acceptance within the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party or it would not have published it.
The introductory sections contain much quite unjustified denigration of this country and its system of immigration control. I find this rather strange in a Labour Party document when it is right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches who have been responsible, in Government, for our immigration system for 11 of the past 16 years. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and for that matter the Leader of the Opposition make of that denigration. Do they agree that the system they operated is offensive in major respects?
The document goes on to make a number of proposals. It recommends wide-scale extensions to the right of abode in this country. Tens of thousands of East African Asians in East Africa, and India would be freed from the control introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary in 1968. The rules governing the entry of dependants would be greatly relaxed, thus increasing the numbers eligible to come here. These provisions would be far less tightly drawn than anything operated by successive Governments. The changes to the work permit scheme and the rules on visitors and students would undermine much of our present control.
The document proposes a more expensive and elaborate appeals system which would enable any aggrieved applicant to take his case all the way up to the Court of Appeal. It would be impossible even to return to his country a passenger refused leave to enter without the risk

1031
of protracted legal proceedings. This is apparently only a discussion document. But if it were to become Labour Party policy, the electorate would have a clear choice between the present Government's policies, which are to provide a firm but fair control of immigration, and the policies of a party which clearly would have no interest whatever in an effective immigration control. Where do the Opposition stand? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the system that he operated is "unjust"?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I operated the systerm for many years in the way that it works at the moment. There is no doubt that it works against people with coloured skins and will continue to do so until the laws on nationality are changed. The Labour Party document is one that should be discussed, and it is much better to have that sort of discussion than to act as the Conservative Party has in coming up with proposals before the election and making changes afterwards.
Mr. Raison: If that is what the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is astonishing that he should have done nothing to change the situation while he was in power.
I should like to conclude by reminding the House of the overall purpose of the changes which the Government have made. There is constant and heavy pressure to enter this country. One can understand the powerful economic incentive which induces people from less fortunate countries to wish to come here and settle. But we have our problems, too. Our unemployment, the strains on our social services, and the need for good community relations, all emphasise the need to bring immigration under control. There is nothing racialist about this. We are already a multiracial society and the maintenance of stable race relations is a matter which I regard as being of paramount importance. But it is in fact in the interests of all the ethnic groups which make up our population to reduce immigration to what is reasonable and acceptable.
Against this background, the new restrictions on the entry of male fiancés and husbands can be seen as only one among a number of measures designed to reduce the scope for exploitation of the system.
1032
Experience shows that, as one avenue is closed, so great pressure arises from people seeking to come by an alternative route. This is why Governments must, from time to time, review the effectiveness of the control and take measures as necessary to correct any defects. That is what the Government have done in the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules" laid on 20 February. I believe firmly that the amendments made were necessary and right and in the interests of all sections of our community. That is why I have no hesitation in urging the House to reject this motion.
8.14 pm
Mr. David Steel: I can understand the air of embarrassment that always surrounds the Minister of State and the Home Secretary when we debate this subject. The reason for that embarrassment is that, while the Minister of State may say that the rules are not racialist in intent, they are certainly racialist in effect. Moreover. some Conservative Back Benchers intend them to be racialist in intent as well. I can therefore understand the state of nervousness of the Minister of State and the Home Secretary and their uncomfortable appearance when they are at the Dispatch Box on these issues.
On the last occasion when we debated the rules, on 4 December—
Sir Ronald Bell rose—
Mr. Steel: I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman within 30 seconds of starting my speech on 4 December. I shall not do that tonight. On 4 December I made what was by my standards a long speech, and I do not propose to do so this evening.
I do not want to be churlish, and therefore it is right that I should welcome the minor amendments which have been made as between the draft rules and the rules on the question of elderly parents and of the spouses of students seeking to work to maintain their spouses in this country. The Minister of State was quite honest when he said that, substantially, these rules are the same as the new ones that we debated in December. I go fur-there. The minor concession that has, quite properly, been made on fiancés and husbands entering this country makes the rules even more blatantly discriminatory

1033
than the form in which they appeared before us on 4 December.
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has already quoted from the celebrated —perhaps I should say notorious—broadcast of the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. Much is made of her use of the word "swamping" and the fears about "swamping", but I want to quote from another part of the same broadcast because I think that we have focused too much on that one phrase.
The right hon. Lady was asked in the broadcast whether it was her intention with her immigration proposals, such as they were vaguely enunciated at the time, to seek to bring back to the Conservative Party some of the support which the National Front had been winning at by-elections. Her reply to the interviewer was "Oh, very much back, certainly". It seems that if one is setting out, as part of one's policy, to retrieve votes from the National Front, one cannot be surprised if one ends up with a racialist policy. That appears to be the only way in which one can attract those votes.
I wish to take up two points with the Minister of State. He mentioned one in the last debate, but signally failed to mention the other. He sought to intervene on 4 December when he was challenged by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South about his speech at the Conservative Party conference when he talked of fiancés and husbands being used as stepping stones for others. In c. 273 of the Official Report he quoted at length, as evidence in support of his conference speech, from a book called "The Myth of Return" written by a social scientist called Dr. Mohammed Anwar, who is on the staff of the Commission for Racial Equality.
I was a bit surprised at the quotation, and when I checked afterwards its references to Pakistanis in Rochdale and so on I discovered that it was written about immigration before the 1962 controls. It had nothing to do with husbands and fiances at present. To put it in parliamentary terms, I think that it was disingenuous of the Minister of State to produce that as evidence to support what he was saying.
Mr. Raison: In the passage in my speech in which I quoted those parts of the book I was not confining my remarks to the issue of husbands and fiances. In my speech at the party conference I was talking in a much wider framework than that.
Mr. Steel: I accept that, but the Minister used that quotation in our debate on 4 December in response to a specific challenge from the right hon. Member for Leeds, South about the evidence of fiancés and husbands being used as stepping stones. That is the answer that he gave from that Dispatch Box. Dr. Anwar's book has nothing to do with the current position of husbands and fiances. Dr. Anwar was dealing with the pattern of historic immigration before 1962 and before we had started the process of control.
May we be told how many people will be prevented from coming into this country as a result of these miserable regulations? We have asked that before, but we have had no answer. The best estimates that I have been able to get have been between 2,000 and 3,000. We are going through all this paraphernalia of introducing rules which I believe are thoroughly repugnant, and of causing an uncertain degree of suffering to families of those already settled here in respect of their elderly people, their fiancés, their husbands and their children.
The Government continue to justify their action—the Minister of State did it a second ago—by referring to the problems faced in this country, particularly that of unemployment. On 4 December I mentioned the article which the Minister of State wrote in The Daily Telegraph. He said that
"the first aim"—
that is, of the draft rules—
"is to reduce the numbers coming into this rather crowded island with its relatively high unemployment."
I went on in my speech—I had no answer to this, and I hope that the Home Secretary will do me the courtesy of giving an answer tonight—to quote from various publications showing the numbers of people who come here from countries such as Australia each year for so-called working holidays. From Australia alone there are between 15,000 and 20,000. I make clear at once that I have no objection to that, but I think it hypocritical to

1035
allow that scale of employment to come in every year and at the same time produce as an argument in favour of these rules that we have high unemployment in Britain. It does not make sense.
What does the Minister of State mean when he talks about acceptable levels of immigration? What is an acceptable level? One cannot just pluck a statistic out of thin air. We are dealing with families and with individuals. There cannot be any right number for immigration. Surely, it depends on the family circumstances in each case.
Turning to the question of the European Convention on Human Rights, one should bear in mind that the rules of the European Court are far wider than those of the British courts. I speak of the British courts, recognising that the English and Scottish legal systems are separate, but evidence and material which would not be permitted in the British courts, either north or south of the border, are open to submission in the European Court. Obiter dicta—including, for example, the entire transcript of the right hon. Lady's Granada television interview—could be produced in evidence before that court to show that the motive and motivation for these rules was indeed discriminatory.
Twice in his speech the Minister of State referred to the strong arguments which the Government had to counter the suggestion that we were in breach of the convention, yet we have not had the barest outline, never mind a detailed case, of what the allegedly strong arguments are.
I wish to end on a constructive note, and I put a particular appeal to the Home Secretary. I believe that the time has come for a new inquiry, and I suggest that in this connection we might do well to look at what has happened in some other countries. I suggest that we set up a major inquiry into our immigration procedures and rules, and I draw upon three examples elsewhere in the world.
In the United States, the Congress created by statute, under its different procedure, a Select Commission to make recommendations with regard to immigration and nationality law and also to consider the social, political, economic and demographic effects of refugee pro-
1036
grammes and to review them. It took account of political and economic conditions in the United States, present and projected unemployment, the conduct of foreign policy, and so on.
In Australia, chaired by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, there has been a Population and Immigration Council—a very wide body including representation from trade unions and academic circles, and again with wide terms of reference.
In Canada, in the 1974–75 Session of the Canadian Parliament, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up, which produced a report to Parliament again covering demographic and economic factors, refugee programmes and procedures for control and enforcement.
Here in the United Kingdom, one has only to look at the evidence given by the Home Office to the Select Committee on race relations and immigration in February 1974 to see what the position is. In a written memorandum the Home Office conceded that
"Immigration law in this country has developed mainly as a series of responses to, and attempts to regulate, particular pressures rather than as a positive means of achieving preconceived social or economic aims."
It is for that reason that I believe that the time has come for a wide-ranging and independent inquiry. With great respect to our Select Committee—either the previous one or the present one on home affairs—I must say that it does not have the scope to go widely into matters which are the responsibility of the Foreign Office and the Departments of the Environment, of Health and Social Security, of Industry, of Employment and of Education and Science.
For that reason, I believe that we ought to establish the only prestigious and effective form of independent inquiry that we have in this country, namely, a Royal Commission to go into these matters, to look at our national policy objectives, our international obligations and our foreign policy needs as well as the protection of the family life and civil liberties of our citizens. I believe that that would be a better way to proceed than year after year to have these debates on tighter and tigher controls on different areas of our immigration legislation.
8.26 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): When we debated the Immigration Act 1971 many of us hoped that it would be the end of the matter. However, it was inherent in that legislation that the Secretary of State would be empowered to bring before the House statements on the administration of the immigration rules and any changes to those rules which he proposed. As a result, we find ourselves debating further changes tonight.
It would have been far better if the 1971 Act had been a sufficiently effective instrument of immigration control to be permanent. We could then have concentrated more on the vital matter, which is good community relations. This is the overriding criterion for what we are debating tonight, and I think it right that we should remember it.
The trouble with the 1971 Act was that abuse of the legislation became possible following the concession that the Labour Government issued in 1974 to admit fiancés and husbands for settlement in this country. There is no doubt that there was abuse, and the very fact that in 1977 the Home Secretary was forced to amend his proposals showed that the abuse was real.
However, in the changes that he made in 1977 the Home Secretary said that where he had reason to believe that one of the parties no longer had any intention of living with the other as his or her spouse the probationary time limit on residence would not normally be removed. In other words, if someone was clearly using the June 1974 provision, as a fiancé or as a husband, to come to this country fraudulently, the Secretary of State would take appropriate measures.
That was all very well, but the trouble with that system has always been that it leads to post-entry verification, which the immigrant communities are unhappy about, and I think that it was that aspect of post-entry verification that led the Conservative Party to its manifesto commitment to end the concession to husbands and fiancés introduced by the Labour Government in 1974. I think it much better that the situation should be absolutely clear and unambiguous.
What the Government are doing in this proposed change, to come into effect as
1038
from 1 March, is to take the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 as far as they can be taken without any actual legislative changes. The relevant part is section 3(2), which states:
"section 1(4) above shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4) (and in particular, for this as well as other purposes of this Act, account may be taken of citizenship or nationality)."
Tonight, the existing provisions of the 1971 Act are being taken to the utmost legal and rational extremity. I can understand the rationale behind that.
The Conservative manifesto was firm about proposals for immigration control. The supporters of the Conservative Party wish to see the manifesto commitments carried through as quickly as is reasonably possible. However, as I have said already, to institute a new and fully comprehensive system of immigration control would require new legislation of a difficult, complicated and time-consuming nature. Therefore, we are adjusting the immigration rules tonight.
To adjust the rules has certain disadvantages, in that the proposals perpetuate a system of discretion and subjective judgment on the part of entry clearance officers. In my criticism of the 1977 provisions I referred to the acts of subjective judgment that the Secretary of State is called upon to make about whether a marriage is one of convenience. Under these proposals, entry clearance officers will have to judge whether one of the parties has any intention of living permanently with the other party, or whether the marriage was entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. That is a difficult responsibility for an entry officer to take upon himself.
I often feel that there are two classes of hon. Member in the House—those who represent areas of high immigrant settlement and those who do not represent such areas. Perhaps I should add another category, namely, those who have served on the Select Committee for race relations or the new Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee. Only they comprehend the difficulties faced by entry clearance officers.
If one has sat in, as I have, on interviews at our missions in the sub-continent and has listened to the questioning

1039
that goes on through interpreters, one is aware of the difficulties of understanding, and the difficulties that entry clearance officers face in coming to their judgments.
The proposals are comprehensible, and I can understand the rationale behind them. They fulfil a short-term need. However, I suggest that a better method would be to pursue the first objective in the Conservative proposals on immigration control, outlined in the manifesto, which could ensue from a thorough review of nationality and citizenship law. In our manifesto we said:
"We shall introduce a new British Nationality Act to define entitlement to British citizenship and to the right of abode in this country. It will not adversely affect the right of anyone now permanently settled here."
If that new Act enshrined in law the right of abode as presently defined in section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, that is, to United Kingdom and colonies passport holders and patrials, and if they—and only they—were able to bring in their dependants, that is, their spouses—I do not define the sex—and their children, once and for all we would have evolved a system of immigration control that would not require periodic amendments and tinkering with revised immigration rules.
That system would not be prejudicial to Commonwealth nationals resident in the United Kingdom because they can, after five years of continuous residence, register as United Kingdom citizens. Those Commonwealth nationals who wished to bring in their families—presumably because they had decided that they wished their home to be in Britain, and did not wish to return to their countries of origin—would have all the rights which, in equity, are their due.
I believe that immigration control on that basis would not be sexist, racist or open to challenge in international courts of law or anywhere else, but would enable us to concentrate on the important task of the amelioration of community relations and of rising to the challenge of the rest of this century, which is to make our big cities worthwhile places in which to live and places of harmony where people get on well together and tolerate and understand each other. That is the important task.
8.35 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the last Parliament there was only one debate on the subject that we increasingly miscall immigration. Even that debate occurred accidentally. It was the result of success in the ballot by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken).
I remember that during the course of that Parliament, there were increasing and repeated demands from the Opposition side that the subject should be further ventilated upon the Floor of the House. The Labour Party, then in office, responded by saying that this would be a suitable topic for a Supply day. I recognise that now in opposition the Labour Party has been true to its professions and has properly and rightly provided a longer time tonight for the discussion not merely of the detail but of the bearings of the document before the House.
We are only in form debating immigration in the literal sense of the term. If all it was about was literal immigration, we should not year upon year tear ourselves to pieces about the details of rules to be followed by immigration officers; nor should we be studying the small print; nor would there be the excited, almost feverish, interest in so relatively small a practical effect as that which will be produced by regulations such as these.
This debate, these regulations and the whole discussion of immigration in the literal sense is conditioned by something that is hardly ever mentioned in these debates. The major premise of the argument remains unspoken. We debate under the presence of a cloud, to the existence and presence of which hardly anyone ever draws attention. We have these debates and we engage in this legislation only because of the present and prospective composition of the population of England in one particular respect. I use the word "England" accurately. Indeed, more accurately still, I would say "most of the major cities and industrial areas of England". It is because of what we know about the present composition of that population and what we have reason to know about its future that we engage in feverish discussion of an extra thousand or more entering or being

1041
prevented from entering this country year by year.
Opposition Members who say that these rules are not in intent of universal application, but related only to a specific description of potential immigrants, are right; they are pointing to a known fact. The rules are related to that element in the population of England which we all have in mind, and have for many years had in mind, when we have debated immigration and legislated on it.
It is a matter of much more than semantic importance—indeed, in some ways it has bedevilled discussion and understanding—that we have no appropriate word to describe that clement in the population. We call it "the immigrant population"; but that is increasingly inapplicable, for increasingly that population consists of those who have not immigrated into the United Kingdom. So, from that difficulty, we take refuge in colour, and refer to the "coloured population" or to "the blacks"; but we know perfectly well how unsatisfactory that is. After all, we are all coloured. " Coloured " in that context is a mere euphemism that betrays our embarrassment and difficulty of expression. As for the word "black", I will only say that no one who has ever served in India—or perhaps I should say "served India"—could ever bring himself to use that term.
What are we to do? We have, fortunately, some assistance from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It has at least a term of art, clumsy though it may be—
"persons of New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic origin".
There is at any rate a definition, not exactly convenient, but still a definition of that element in the population of greats parts of England, which is what all this is about—its present and its future. So—I hope with occasional pardonable abbreviation—I shall endeavour to use that phrase from now on.
We know a good deal—not as much as we might—about the present and future size, the relative size, of that element in the population. We know that in the areas of England to which I have referred, for as far back as records have been kept—in the case of the city of Birmingham that is for about 22 or 23 years, which
1042
I think is the longest period for any place in the Kingdom—the proportion which the births to that population bear to total births has remained at a level of one-fifth, one quarter and one-third, where, over the years for which we have these figures, they have varied, they have steadily increased as a proportion of the total.
I should add a further point about the figures for the more recent years. We know that they are not complete. The OPCS tells us that perfectly candidly. Those figures no longer include births to members of that population where both parents were themselves born in this country. Therefore, on the definition of the OPCS itself, the New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic origin births are a larger proportion of total births than the fractions that I have mentioned.
Mr. Ennals: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that that is in some way an unfair method of making a judgment by OPCS. Surely it is perfectly right that where a husband and wife are both born in this country we should not talk about immigrants. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that OPCS has been doing its job quite properly.
Mr. Powell: Yes, I thought it was clear that I had accepted its definition of the population about which we try to talk but for which we have no appropriate single or simple terminology; and I was simply drawing attention to the fact that the OPCS itself points out that the figures to which I have referred have in recent years increasingly understated the proportion of births which are births to the New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic population.
This further we know in consequence. We know it not as conjecture; we know it not as extrapolation; we know it not as theory. We know it as a fact. We know as a fact that those proportions are the pattern of the future total population of those parts of the country. Subject to very minor qualifications, such as further literal immigration, and subject to internal migration, there is no escaping from the fact that the pattern of births over 10, 15, 20, 25 years must be the pattern of the future total population, unless one makes assumptions which I have never made in this context, namely—
Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What does this have to do with the proposed changes in immigration rules that we are debating tonight?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I think that it is sufficiently material to what we are debating. It is a general debate on immigration.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper is quite clear. It is not a general debate on immigration. It is a debate aimed specifically at the statement on immigration rules and the proposed changes in them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has been saying is perfectly in order in terms of the debate.
Mr. Powell: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I conclude, I hope to show the hon. Member and others that what I am talking about is very relevant indeed to the fact that the House has before it these particular rules and this particular document.
I was saying that we know, because it is the result of facts which already exist, the minimum proportion in future which that population will represent to the whole over the areas of this country which are concerned. We know that in central London it will be one-third or more; and we know that there will be a similar ratio in many of the other great cities of England.
In those circumstances, to imagine that by these rules or any others one can bring, in the Conservative Party's terminology, of which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) reminded the House, "a clear end to immigration", is totally absurd; for if there is a settled population of this magnitude, it is idle to imagine that its recruitment will not continue—I use "recruitment" as an entirely neutral word—unless we are to say to part of the resident population of this country, "You shall not marry whence you please, you may not choose or find spouses where you think fit".
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is just what these rules do.
Mr. Powell: I understand that. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is assisting me and Mr. Deputy Speaker to fix the relevance of my remarks to the subject of the debate.
It is absurd to contend that one can bring an end to immigration when this is to be the pattern of our future population. By the very natural order of things such a population, taking it as a whole—the parts vary to some extent—is bound to involve—I almost said "to require" —continuing immigration. Therefore, the attempt to deal with the anxieties of great numbers in our cities, the attempt to deal with the fears or feelings or whatever it was to which the Prime Minister was referring, by adjustment of the detailed requirements for immigration, is not merely futile; it is either deception or it is, more charitably, self-deception. But whether it is self-deception or deception, the effect is to promote and keep alive in people's minds a kind of escape route from the future that lies before this country, to enable people in large numbers—all hon. Members know what I am saying—to say to themselves, "Oh, if only immigration were stopped this would go away. If only they would control immigration." That is a delusion which we merely feed by pretending that by controlling immigration, by tinkering with, by rendering rational—in the words of the Minister of State—the immigration rules we can appreciably alter that which, on the facts as they are, lies before this country.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the fallacy of the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that when this population stabilises at 3·3 million there will not be any substantial danger such as he argued in the past. These people, though their ethnic origin may be Asian or West Indian, will be British in their outlook and the composition of this society will be different; it will be settled and harmonious.
Mr. Powell: I take it to be confirmation of the logical manner in which I was attempting to evolve my argument that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) anticipated the ground on to which I was about to move. At least I am sure that he is with me—I do not see how anyone

1045
can be against me—in saying that if we have such a population settled in this country it is idle to talk of "a clear end to immigration"; for immigration is implicit in the existence of that population of those dimensions in the cities of this country.
Now I come to the question which the hon. Member for York posed to me and which I say it is the duty of everyone to pose to himself. Not merely should we pose this question to ourselves but we have a duty and responsibility to declare ourselves upon it and to say what we believe would be meant by an inner London one-third New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic, or a Leicester, a Birmingham, a Wolverhampton and a West Riding of similar dimensions.
Broadly speaking there are three schools of thought on this subject. They vary in shades but they can be, perhaps, usefully classified into three. There are those who say—if I may use a jocular expression—that "it will be all right on the night", that it will evolve naturally and harmoniously—that I think is what the party to which the hon. Member for York belongs says—that we shall grow up with it and it will grow up with us; so we need not bother our heads about it, and least of all need we attempt to bring to bear irrelevancies of irritant detail such as those that are before the House this evening. That is one point of view.
There is a second point of view which, however much over the years I have sought to persuade myself that it could be ill-founded, I must nevertheless admit to holding. It is that such an England would be unlivable and ungovernable. It would not merely be inconceivable to us because of our past habits. It would be inconceivable in reality; and its inconceivability would be resolved in civil discord and violence. That is a second point of view, one which many hold.
The third view is in a sense akin to the second and that is the view—I use the word for convenience only—of the race relations industry. The race relations industry belongs to school 2, not to school 1. In fact it belongs to school 2b. It says that there is such a catastrophe ahead, but that it can be averted by race relations legislation, administration, persuasion and all the rest of it.
1046
Now we do not know which of those views is right. The matter cannot be decided by any deduction, logic or analogy from elsewhere, because such an England would be unique and unprecedented in the relevant terms, which are the terms of England.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Powell: No, I will not give way. I have given way to the hon. Member once and I want to complete my speech.
Nevertheless, we have the duty now, because we are responsible for the future as we have in the past been responsible for that same future, to decide, to declare and to persuade our fellow countrymen if we can that we are right in what we see.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I must explain that I have black relatives and I do not take kindly to the sort of statements that he is making. Apart from that, what is the logic of his argument, where is he leading us? He has explained, quite rightly. that we are now a multiracial society and that we must have some control over immigration, whether it is white or black. That is accepted. I do not think anyone in the House would argue that there can be unlimited immigration into this country. Having accepted that, what is the logic of the right hon. Member's argument? What does he propose? Is he suggesting that we should send all these coloured people back? Where do we send them back to? [Interruption.]
Mr. Powell: Evidently the question is one that is worth debating. First, I am extremely sorry—indeed I am grieved—if anything that I have said could give any offence to the hon. Member or to any other person.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Member gives offence every time he opens his mouth on this subject.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) claims that I give offence whenever I open my mouth on this subject. To echo the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer), one must ask where that takes us? It takes us to a point at which hon. Members, responsible to their constituents, responsible for the future, may offer one view, and

1047
no other, as to what that future holds; otherwise they will be regarded as giving offence.
The importance of all this and where it is leading is this: that according to the view which is taken as between those broad alternative interpretations, according to the view which, on their responsibility, the Government take, so they must act. If it be the case that the prospective pattern of the population of this country is such that this country would not be a place worth living in, or London a city capable of being governed, for all who live in it, then it is the duty of those in authority to take measures accordingly. Those measures, since they are in the interests of all, are measures which should claim the support of all and for which the support of all should be sought. I believe it would be forthcoming.
What the Government are doing, what the Conservative Party has done by what it said in its election manifesto and by way it has acted in office, is to renege on that responsibility. The Conservatives have not been prepared to say to the public "This is the future of the population of England, and we believe it to be acceptable. We intend therefore to shut our eyes to it henceforward; for nothing that we will do, and nothing that we shall bring forward, can make any practical effect to it." By this kind of fiddling in these rules—it is not even legislation—as the Minister of State was careful to say—the Government are only finding an excuse to deny the British people the duty which, as the Government, they owe to them.
9 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I am pleased to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has spoken inside and outside the House on a number of occasions on this subject when politicians of both main parties have felt, like some hon. Members tonight, that he would do best to be silent about the issue on which he speaks so well and so succinctly.
The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the House rarely debates this subject. He referred to the last full debate on immigration and emigration held on 24 May 1976. It is a pity that we do not discuss the subject at greater length. The fact that we do not debate it at further
1048
length contributes to the fear that many whom we represent have come to associate with the issue. We are indebted to Her Majesty's Opposition for the fact that we have this debate, but we temper our indebtedness in the knowledge that they seek less rather than more control over immigration from the New Commonwealth.
I represent a constituency that has been little affected by immigration of large numbers of citizens from the New Commonwealth to our shores over the past three decades. However, many of the voters whom I have the honour to represent have experienced—many of their relatives are still experiencing—the problems in the inner cities that such migrations have exacerbated. We cannot turn a blind eye to present and future racial strife merely because we represent constituencies in the greener pastures of, for example, Mid-Essex.
Successive Governments have heard the fears of black and white alike. They have witnessed the strains and stresses on the surface in our inner city areas and in our urban conurbations. Both parties have responded by imposing successive controls on immigration, Alas, they may all be typified by the words "Too little and too late".
In the 1970 election manifesto of the Conservative Party, entitled "A Better Tomorrow"—[Interruption.] I am interested in the response of Labour Members because that was a manifesto on which the Conservative Party won a splendid victory. In that manifesto we pledged:
"There will be no further large scale permanent immigration'
from the New Commonwealth into the United Kingdom."
But since then 457,873 New Commonwealth citizens have been accepted for settlement. The highest number was in 1972, when 68,519 came in for settlement. The lowest was in 1973, when 32,247 were settled here. The average over that period was 45,000. These figures take no account of illegal immigration.
Sir Ronald Bell: Those figures also take no account, in the years that my hon. Friend is referring to, of those who entered not for settlement but who were subsequently accepted for settlement. That category is now included in the statistics, and therefore we now know its magnitude.
Mr. Proctor: My hon. and learned Friend adds to the information on this subject. The figures that I have given are indeed under-estimates for that period, for the reason that he so clearly gave.
It is in the light of those figures that we must judge the rules. The changes in the rules are likely to have the effect of reducing immigration. The figure has not been mentioned by my own Front Bench, but I take it to be a few thousand each year.
Having considered the matter carefully, I do not think that that change will be sufficient in itself to allay the fears that gave rise to the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that people feared that this country was being swamped by New Commonwealth immigration. Nor do I believe that it will in any way meet the statement by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary in the debate in 1976, when he ended his speech by saying:
"We must convince many people in this country that their genuine fears of future racial difficulties caused by too lax an immigration policy now are unfounded or, if there is a risk of such difficulties, that we will make sure that they are dealt with."—[Official Report, 24 May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 93]
Of course, Ministers will reply that no further controls can be exercised, because the bulk of immigration from the New Commonwealth is now made up largely of wives and dependants. It was with that in mind that a few days ago I tabled a motion making it clear that immigrant families could be reunited in their own country as well as in the United Kingdom. Must we wait a further 10 years and allow another⅓million or½million migrants to enter before we act?
Racial harmony and avoidance of strife will be achieved only when the indigenous population see a fall rather than a rise in the total New Commonwealth population resident in the United Kingdom. Simply stopping the immigrant flow will not now, regrettably, be sufficient to bring this about.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: My hon. Friend is saying that he wants to see a reduction in the total immigrant or coloured population. How will he decide which British citizens will be expelled from the country whose citizenship they hold?
Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend should not put words into my mouth. If he will bear with me for a little while, I may answer his question.
The fuel for the further increase in the immigrant population is natural increase and not further immigration. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to reaffirm the view of successive Leaders of the Conservative and Unionist Party since the leadership of Sir Alec Douglas-Home that repatriation has a role to play for all those who wish to avail themselves of it. That role needs reviewing, clarifying, publicising and financing properly. The greater the take-up of a humane repatriation programme administered by the Home Office rather than by some international charitable institution in South London, the greater can be our tolerance and flexibility with regard to dependants.
This subject and the fears of our people about it will not go away with the passing of these rules. The House will be driven to return to it. I hope that it will return to it before long.
9.11 pm
Mr. David Winnick: The first thing that we should recognise is that immigration controls on blacks and Asians—and we are dealing basically with blacks and Asians in this debate—are very tight and have existed under successive Governments for a number of years.
The speech to which we have just listened was one of which we should all be ashamed. Really, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) wants to set up camps—in practice this would be the position—to force people, many of whom are British citizens, out of the country.
Mr. Stokes: Withdraw.
Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that there could be anything more un-British than the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Basildon, and I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks about him.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I disagree with most of what my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) said. However, to talk in the sort of language just used by the hon.

1051
Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to put words into the mouth of my hon. Friend which he did not use simply serves to inflame the atmosphere of this debate.
Mr. Winnick: That is a matter of opinion, but I believe that the offence which that type of speech gives to people who do not have white skins should be recognised. Therefore, I do not believe that any apology from me is needed. The apology should come from the hon. Member for Basildon.
Britain has probably some of the tightest immigration controls in Western Europe. Whether we like it or not, most of us recognise that there have to be effective immigration controls. That has been my view for a number of years. I do not think that it is disputed. The important question is how those controls apply in practice.
On coming into office the Conservative Government found that the amount of immigration which could be reduced was very small. Prior to coming into office they had promised to reduce immigration and they gave the impression that there was a great deal of immigration which could be reduced. In practice, however, the majority of people who come from the New Commonwealth countries are women with their children who come here, rightly, to join husbands who are settled in the United Kingdom. The amount left for the Government to reduce has always been very small because primary immigration stopped some time ago.
Unless one said that wives and children should not be allowed to join husbands in the United Kingdom—it happens to be the Opposition's view that they should be allowed to continue to do so, and I am happy to say that that is also the Government's view—the scope for reducing immigration is limited. In effect, therefore, the Government have concentrated on two main groups—male fiances and aged parents.
I take the view that it is an accepted custom amongst the Asian community to arrange marriages for their children. In my view the greatest possible distinction should be made between marriages of convenience and marriages which are arranged in the Asian community. Un-
1052
doubtedly, as time goes on, a number of Asian girls born in this country will find their own partners, but it is wrong to force the change, as the Government intend. The only reason why they are forcing through this change is to reduce the number of Asians coming in. That has been drawn so as to make it clear that it will not affect white women.
We must be honest about this. The whole point of the new rule is to reduce the numbers—not necessarily of black people, but of Asians, who are told in effect that they are not required and should not be allowed to come through the accepted Asian custom of arranged marriages.
It has been said that we could be in breach of articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Tomorrow our debate will arise from the fact that the Government broke a domestic law. We should be aware that we may be breaking an international convention to which we are a signatory.
The views expressed to the Select Committee by such distinguished people as Lord Scarman, Professor Jacobs and Mr. Anthony Lester should not be dismissed out of hand. They are based on a great deal of experience and should be heard with respect.
There is a misleading impression that before the new rules were introduced it was relatively easy for aged parents to join their adult children in this country. This is not so. I remind the House that under the old rules the parents had to show that one of them was 65 or over and had a sponsor here with adequate means to support or accommodate them. That was a preliminary, but it was not sufficient on its own, because one also had to show that the parents were wholly or mainly dependent on the adult child in this country. Thus, even under the old rules, it was difficult for aged parents to join their children here. Time and again parents could not satisfy the strict rules. They failed to get clearance to come here and they lost their appeals.
On a personal note, while I was out of the House I represented a number of people at immigration appeal hearings. It was very difficult to persuade an adjudicator or the immigration appeals

1053
tribunal that the parents satisfied the relevant immigration rule. The reason was clear. It was that, some time ago, the tribunal had ruled, in the case of Zaman, that the sending of money by adult children to parents was not sufficient on its own. It was also necessary, according to the tribunal, for the parents to show that they were "necessarily so dependent". Thus, the number of aged parents who were allowed in from the Indian Sub-continent has been very small.
I am pleased that the Home Secretary has changed the Catch-22 rule. I was one of those who made representations to him. If the original proposal had gone through, no aged parents would have been allowed in. That was clear enough to lead to the change. However, under the new rule 48, in addition to the matters that I have mentioned, it is now also necessary for parents to show that they have no other close relatives in their own country to turn to. So, on top of the difficulties and obstacles under the old rules, aged parents have this extra condition to satisfy.
It should not be considered an offence for parents of 65 and over to wish to join their adult children here. In most cases there is no advantage to those children who take on the responsibility of aged parents. It is highly commendable that they are willing to do so. They have come to this country and settled down. It would have been relatively easy for them to have ignored their parents or simply to have sent them money, but they have an understandable wish to look after their aged parents.
Certainly the elderly parents do not come here for the fun of it. Flaying lived all their lives in India or Pakistan they do not particularly wish to come to a strange land. Why do they come here? It is not to join the labour market. In most cases the elderly mothers of children in this country have never worked in their own country and are not likely to do so here. Their husbands have no particular desire to start working either. Therefore, for various reasons—mainly because of pressure in their own country where they may need help—they come to this country to join their adult children. Is that a crime? Under the new rules
1054
it will be even more difficult for those aged parents to satisfy the criteria for coming to join their children.
The children settled in this country cannot understand why their parents should not be allowed to come here. The children have the means and the accommodation to support their parents and have provided documentary evidence to that effect. They ask why their parents should not be allowed to join them.
I am worried that when this rule is interpreted by immigration and entry clearance officers it might be said that there is no need for the aged parents to come to the United Kingdom because perhaps, they have a married daughter in India or Pakistan, but the custom among these people is that it is the sons who look after the parents. It would be most unfortunate, where a married daughter in India or Pakistan is not in a position to look after her parents, if they were not allowed to come here. I hope that that aspect will be looked at carefully.
I may be wrong, but I understand that the Minister has said—according to reports in the press—that he has received too many letters of complaint from Members of Parliament about immigration. I do not know whether it is accurate, but he seems to be saying that there is too much representation on the issue. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that as the rules become tighter in relation to elderly parents he will receive more not fewer letters. Where adult children in the United Kingdom are not able to bring their parents here, they will understandably ask their Members of Parliament to make the appropriate representations.
We have made substantial progress in bringing race discrimination to an end in this country. I do not believe that all discrimination has ended, but when I hear sarcastic references by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to the "race relations industry" I remember that race discrimination really did exist 10 years ago. It cannot be denied that discrimination existed in employment and housing in those days, and it was rare to see an Asian or a black face behind a counter. To a large extent that type of discrimination has disappeared, and that surely proves the point that we needed an effective Act in the first place. I go further and argue that we are a better and

1055
healthier society as a result of that discrimination having been brought to an end.
However, I am worried that there will still be discrimination when it comes to the operation of the immigration laws. Along with the majority of my colleagues, I take the view that effective control of immigration is necessary. I do not want to give the impression that an open-door policy is desirable or that such a policy could be pursued by a Labour Government. There is a general wish for tight controls, but I am concerned about the manner in which those controls will be exercised. I believe that the new rules will give great and justified offence to those of our fellow citizens who do not have a white skin.
Up to now we have maintained effective immigration control, although some people argue that the controls have been too tight. There is no need to tighten them further. Therefore, I hope that even at this late hour the Government will recognise the offence that they have caused to the immigrant community. We are entitled to say that the rules are not necessary. We are also justified in voting against them.
9.25 pm
Mr. George Gardiner: I intend to make a contribution based upon a visit to India in January, when I studied the operation of our immigration control procedures and sat in on a number of the interviews of applicants. However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) based a considerable part of his case on the Home Affairs Committee report on the proposed new immigration rules and their relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. I was a member of the Committee which prepared the report and interviewed witnesses.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the report is strictly neutral. We set as our task the gathering of evidence and the presentation of it to the House. We heard all the witnesses with great respect. Among the witnesses was Professor Jacobs, professor of European law at London university. One significant point arose from his evidence—the distinction in the eyes of the European Commission between "differential treatment" applied by a
1056
Government to their citizens and "discrimination". His evidence was that differential treament can constitute discrimination only if it has
"no objective and reasonable justification".
The Government have ample evidence to sustain the proposition that they have "objective and reasonable justification" for amending the rules in the way that they propose. It is clear that in reaching its opinion the Commission would have regard to a wide range of attendant circumstances. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was correct to say that evidence could be put to the Commission which would not normally be admissible in a British court of law. He cited a television interview of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Leader of the Opposition. It is equally true that a party manifesto containing proposals on which a party is elected to Government, reports of party conferences and the treatment given to the issues in speeches and articles can be put before the Commission.
I am confident that if anyone were so misguided as to take the present Government to the European Court on this issue the Attorney-General and his Law Officers would be able to make a good case in defence of what we are voting upon this evening.
When I was in India I spent some time talking to our staff when undertaking their duties. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in paying tribute to the work of our officers in India and in other parts of the Sub-continent. It is obvious that they have a keen awareness of the duty that we have placed upon them. They undertake it with humane understanding and they conduct the interviews of applicants in a most considerate manner.
In debates such as this I sometimes wonder whether Labour Members are inclined to forget that our real purpose is to control immigration. The most obvious lesson that struck me when I was in India was the way in which we are now paying the pr of previous laxity in these matters. Before I went I looked up a document which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) placed in the Library for us some four years ago. That was the report by Mr.

1057
D. F. Hawley when he was Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after a tour of inspection of our immigration posts on the Indian Sub-continent. He then reported to his superiors that the concession introduced in June 1974 over husbands and fiances was being abused, and he said:
"The concession involves the 'multiplier' factor as it entitles parents, grandparents and allegedly distressed relatives of the fiancé to apply"
—to apply, of course, for entry to this country as well.
When one sits in at these interviews today one can see that multiplier effect at work in a most significant way. Our ECOs are now interviewing the aged parents of former fiancés admitted under that relaxation. While I was there I witnessed an interview of the aged relatives of a gentleman who was admitted to this country as a fiancé to marry a particular lady who then rejected him on sight. Before the authorities could catch up with him he had quickly found another to marry in her place. This is an instance of the terrible legacy that has been bequeathed to us from that relaxation of the rules in 1974. We are tonight discussing a fairly modest step to tighten up there.
I referred to the famous Hawley report, and I think that it was significant in another respect which is still pertinent today. He remarked in paragraph 21:
"The present position is unsatisfactory because current procedures and instructions are based on a Home Office assumption that the immigration problem in the Sub-continent is finite and that we are in the last stages of clearing up a backlog of 'entitled' dependants."
He went on to report that all the heads of mission and post then—that is, four years ago—were convinced that this assumption was wrong, and that he shared their view.
When I was there I put this point to our ECOs and they, too, were still of the opinion that the queue lining up for interview is constant, that as the top is scooped off so it is added to at the bottom. They were inclined to share the view put forward by Mr. Hawley four years ago that much more serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a register of those who still had an entitlement to enter this country.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As to the finite nature of the queue, the suggestion that I made in 1974 that the queue of wives and children would ultimately end has been indicated quite clearly in India. It is now indicated quite clearly in Pakistan. Of the 27,000 who are now in the queue in the whole of the Sub-continent, the great majority are in Bangladesh, and that is all that is left of what I always said was the finite part of the queue.
Mr. Gardiner: The evidence which I quoted was from India, not from Bangladesh, and I put it forward with confidence in the source from which it came.
When I look back over all the argument about these proposed new immigration rules—which many of us regard as a fairly modest step towards fulfilment of the promises which we put to the electorate in our manifesto—I must ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether they are fully satisfied that these new rules will suffice to allay the anxieties which undoubtedly exist in this country.
In his opening speech, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South raised the question of the proposed register. I recall the words of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary in a speech at Leicester on 7 April 1978. After posing the question how many were left in the queue, my right hon. Friend made the basic point:
"If certainty and finality are to be introduced into our future plans, and if anxiety is to be relieved, the answer to that question must be found."
He went on to make proposals for a register and for a system of annual quotas applied right across the board, and he concluded:
"I believe this change to a predetermined rate of entry, coupled with a finite number to be received, will allay many—perhaps most—of the anxieties about immigration that cause such damage to good race relations today."
I believe that those words of the Home Secretary two years ago are as true today as they were then. We are being asked tonight to vote upon a small but helpful step in the right direction, but I hope that it will not be long before the Home Secretary or the Minister of State is able to reassure us that work will start in fulfilment of that manifesto commitment—or that, if the Government for some

1059
reason come to the conclusion that that is not practicable, they will bring forward other proposals which will achieve the same end.
9.39 pm
Mr. David Ennals: The speeches which we have heard from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and some of his hon. Friends show how deeply divided are hon. Members on the Government Benches over this issue. Some of them are worried about the move which is being made and have made their position clear. Some want us to go very much further. There is no unity whatsoever. Perhaps they all fought on the same manifesto, but they do not know what to think today.
The only good thing to be said about the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is that he is at least against what the Government are putting forward tonight. But he has made his own contributions over the years to the fears and uncertainty of the minority community in this country, and I do not think that anything he said tonight, although he said it without some of the pictures of rivers of blood and the other emotive terms which he uses, will do anything to allay that uncertainty. I admit that he has been followed in that in the interview by the Prime Minister, which has been referred to on many occasions. I hope that he will not feel that he has a special and continuing role throughout his life to stir up uncertainty among the minority communities in Britain, who have a right to live in freedom and equality with all our citizens.
I spoke briefly in a debate on 4 December, when I concentrated mainly on the social and religious implications of the rules which were, in my view, discriminatory on grounds of sex, race and religion, and on their effects on community relations. It would be unfair not to recognise that some move has been made as a result of that debate.
I wish to be brief and to concentrate on one aspect only, namely, the legal for Reigate in doing so. I shall concentrate on paragraphs 50 and 52 of the rules. The Government, who have had so much to say about law and order, appear to be all too ready to breach the law themselves. It undermines the appeal which the Home Secretary and
1060
the Prime Minister made to the public if they are prepared to take action which they know to be illegal, or which they fear and suspect is illegal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, we shall be debating tomorrow a Bill to legalise retrospectively actions taken by the Secretary of State for Social Services, which were clearly illegal when he took such actions. Tonight we have, in my view, a worse position. We are being asked to vote into effect rules which, as the Government must know, in spite of the Minister's remarks, are contrary to the responsibilities which we have accepted in ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a serious matter.
I wish that the Minister, when introducing the debate, had concentrated on some of the arguments. He said that there were many strong arguments but he did not adduce any of them. I wish to remind the House of an exchange that took place in the debate on 4 December, when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) asked the Home Secretary:
"Will he now tell us what legal advice will be available about whether his proposals are in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights?"
The Home Secretary replied:
"That is a matter for the courts when the time comes for them to consider it. It is not a matter for me at this stage."
That reply was not good enough. It is not good enough for a Minister to say that he is not certain whether actions that are being taken are within the law, and that it is a matter for the courts to decide later. The court reached a conclusion, and that may be the position regarding the European Court.
I refer to an intervention in that debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), when he said:
"Surely the House should be advised by a Law Officer of the Crown about whether these proposals are in conformity with, or in breach of, the European convention?"
The Home Secretary replied:
"I am coming to that."—[Official Report, 4 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 256–57.]
But he did not come to that, and at no stage since then have the Government come to that issue.
Reference has been made to the first report of the Home Affairs Committee,

1061
HC 434, published on 11 February. I refer the House to paragraph 6, which states:
"In addition to the Home Office, the Sub-Committee had invited one of the Law Officers to appear before them. This invitation was not taken up. While we do not wish to press the matter in this instance, we feel that the refusal by Ministers to give evidence could raise an important issue which might need to be resolved early in the lifetime of the new Select Committee system."
The hon. Member for Reigate, who is at this moment leaving the Chamber, says that there was no agreement in Committee, but there was certainly agreement in that report that the Law Officers invited were not prepared to attend. Neither in the debate on 4 December, nor in the debate today, has there been a Law Officer present to say whether in his view the actions which are being taken under paragraphs 50 and 52 are considered or would be considered to be in conformity with the obligations which we have undertaken under the European convention.
Having read the report with some care, I have to say that those who gave evidence did so with great clarity. On page 30 of the report of the evidence Lord Scarman, talking about fiancés and husbands, said:
"Now, undoubtedly, the effect of that policy carried out will be that some women settled in the United Kingdom will be less well placed in their family life than others. That is a discrimination, and it is a discrimination which can be said, prima facie, to offend Article 14, so that it is a combination, as you say, of Article 8 and 14 which gives rise to the possibility of a breach of the Convention."
Other evidence given before the Select Committee is to the effect that the Government are asking us to vote for something which would be against the views of the European convention, the terms of which we have accepted.
Before sitting down, I want to put some questions to the Home Secretary to which I hope he will reply. These questions also convey the views of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. That body, referring to the evidence given before the Immigration Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee, stated:
"The sections of the convention which would be breached would be the Articles on the protection of the family and on discrimination on grounds of race and sex."
1062
It goes on to say that
"it is inconceivable that a government which respects the rule of law should knowingly breach its international obligations on matters of such importance. To do so would bring discredit on the United Kingdom in Europe and internationally."
I ask the Home Secretary, first: what are the views of the Law Officers? Do they believe that the action that the Government are proposing to take will be in conformity with our obligations under the European convention?
Secondly, why did the Law Officers refuse to appear before the Sub-Committee when they were invited to do so? Was it that they feared that their evidence would enable the Select Committee to reach the conclusion that what we were doing would be against the terms of the European convention?
What is the Home Secretary's view? It is all very well to say, as the Minister of State said, that there are many arguments that we could bring forward if we were brought before the court. No doubt plenty of criminals have said "Do not worry. If we are brought before the court, we shall find all kinds of arguments that will get us out of difficulty." That is not good enough for Home Office Ministers who have responsibility for law and order in this country.
Does the Home Secretary still adhere to the argument that it is not a matter for him to determine whether his actions are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? If not, whose responsibility is it? If it is not his responsibility to ensure that what he puts before the House is in line with the law, we are living in the law of the jungle.
Finally, is that just the first step, as so many of the Home Secretary's hon. Friends want? Is this the 1980 version of the application of the manifesto, or is there more to come in terms of legislation?
I hope that in winding-up the debate the Secretary of State will answer those questions.
9.50 pm
Mr. Nick Budgen: I agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) in hoping that the Home Secretary will tell us whether this is the beginning or the

1063
end of the programme. I also agree that the matter has been left very vague.
Indeed, I noted in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that apart from a few pretty vague paragraphs about the problem of illegal immigration he did not say anything at all about the general problems. Even in relation to illegal immigration, which was dealt with in the Home Secretary's speech on 4 December, nothing was said about the specific measures for dealing with that. Therefore, on any basis, not much has been said to the House about the future of immigration policy.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) helped the House in the first part of his speech. He defined the problem that, as he put it, hangs like a cloud over these debates, which he tried to describe as the problem of identifying what we mean by immigrants, which he now describes as persons of New Commonwealth and Pakistani ethnic origin. While I was much helped by his description of the problem and his precise identification of a term by which it could be described, I did not find that I was able to agree with his sharp division of the two schools of thought, with a subdivision to the second school. The right hon. Gentleman said that there are those who, broadly speaking, believe that it will be all right on the night. Then there are those who fall into the school of thought, who say that England will become ungovernable. I fall nearer to the second category than to the first. But it seems to me that one does not have to go as far as the right hon. Gentleman goes. One does not have to say that England will ultimately become ungovernable.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described two schools—the one that would be all right on the night and also the hecatomb that he prophesied? Surely it is not good enough to say that it will be all right on the night when the right hon. Gentleman admits that no one really knows who was right. Surely it would be much more constructive if we all worked to make it all right on the night.
Mr. Budgen: We want to try to make it all right on the night, but we must also recognise that there is a serious possibility that the right hon. Gentleman could be
1064
right. I think that he goes too far, but none the less I believe that without action, even if England does not become ungovernable it will be an extremely unhappy place in which to live. There seems to me no doubt that the policy by which about 2 million people from other lands have been allowed to settle or to produce families in a few areas of England has created much unhappiness for them as well as for the people who have received them.
I wish to reduce the tension and the unhappiness. One of the most effective ways in which that can be done is to have a tight immigration policy. But before saying why I support what we the Tories said at the general election, I ought to deal with the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). He plainly believes that a policy of repatriation is not only desirable but possible.
We have to define very carefully what we mean by repatriation. There will always be a number of persons from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan who will wish to go back to their country of origin. They will wish to go back voluntarily. I am in favour of making it possible for them to go back voluntarily. But out of 2 million people, of whom two-fifths have been born in this country, there will not be a very significant number who will wish to go back voluntarily. So unless anyone wishes to advocate compulsory repatriation, with all that that implies—and I say immediately that I am not in favour of it—it will not be possible to deal with the problem in a significant way by voluntary repatriation.
So we are left with other proposals that we shall advocate, in the hope that the prediction of the right hon. Gentleman that England will become ungovernable can be proved to be wrong, but at least in recognition of my proposition that there is a vast, terrible and often unrecognised problem that ought to be faced with courage and honesty by this House.
When we look at the revised rules we see that it is plain that absolutely all the concessions have been made to the Opposition. [Interruption.] Well, all right—to the opposition within the ranks of the Tory Party and to the Opposition. But not one concession has been made to those who wish to see tighter controls over immigration. As I said earlier, not one

1065
word has been said about the future control of immigration. It is plain, is it not, that in his kindly way the Home Secretary is very sensitive to criticism in respect of this policy?
As a practical matter, I invite the whole House to look carefully at what was decided in the past when we became a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. There are many people who oppose the immigration rules. Members of Parliament are perfectly entitled to oppose them, and it is right that when matters of minority rights are debated, they should be fiercely debated. But the worst argument is the argument that we are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. I say to the Home Secretary that there is a need now to say immediately that we should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let us have a look at the consequence of our being a party to that convention. I invite the House to look at the report of the Select Committee to which reference was made a short while ago, and more especially to page 36, because the Committee was very fortunate in that Mr. Anthony Lester, QC gave a very careful opinion to the Sub-Committee. On page 36, at paragraph 9, he most usefully set out the relevant principles from the convention to be applied to this problem.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State is being slightly less than frank with the House when he says that there is no racial discrimination in the proposals. I know that one can make an argument for almost anything. I am sure that if this matter is litigated an apparently respectable argument will be put forward for the proposition that there is no discrimination on either sex or race. I should have thought that that argument would be unlikely to succeed.
What is the next line of defence? It is the principle of proportionality. As Lord Scarman told the Sub-Committee, that means bringing into effect the argument whether the end justifies the means. What it comes to is that the broad issues that we have to debate—
It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Protection of Trading Interests Bill and to the Bees Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

IMMIGRATION RULES
Question again proposed.
Mr. Budgen: What happens is that Continental judges or the Committee of Ministers will decide the broad issues that the House of Commons should decide. They will decide the issue of individual freedom as opposed to the authority of the State. They will decide the question of how large the racial minority group should be in England and what their rights should be as opposed to the rights of the indigenous population.
I raise this matter became it is not just relevant to these fairly unimportant rules and the simple issue before us, but because at least some of us on the Government Benches are determined that the spirit of the commitments made to the people of England at the last general election shall be adhered to. We believe that in large measure we were elected upon those promises and that we owe an obligation to those who elected us to see that those promises are carried out.
The three main promises that were made were, first, that we should have a new British Nationality Bill and Act, secondly, that there should be a register and, thirdly that there should be a quota. All those matters could give rise to an application, first to the Commission, then to the Court, and ultimately to the Committee.
Mr. Ennals: I recognise that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is arguing that we should withdraw from commitments that we entered into but he is not saying that we have not entered into those obligations, any more than he is saying that he did not enter into obligations to his electorate in terms of the Conservative manifesto. But did he agree with the point that I made, that it is not good enough for the

1067
Home Secretary to say, in terms of whether it is within the accepted law:
"It is not a matter for me at this stage."—[Official Report, 4 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 256].
Mr. Budgen: Of course the right hon. Gentleman made the point rhetorically. I accept that we have entered the Community and we are bound by the obligations, but if the House raises this issue and speaks of a clog upon the sovereignty of the House of Commons, as we necessarily do, the Government owe the House a view upon the effect of that convention in the same way that my obligation, when taking part in the debate, is to give a view on the points that are likely to be raised before the Committee of Ministers in the last resort.
1068
The three additional promises to which I referred, and also to the promise to stamp out illegal immigration and illegal overstaying, go to the very heart of the sovereignty of the House of Commons. Every time we raise an issue that seeks to deal with these promises there will be siren voices from all parts of the House—from those who are strong Europeans, those who believe in world government and those who believe in all forms of supranational control over the sovereign House of Commons. Out of a mixture of kindliness and guilt they will be listened to far too attentively. Let us move to the logic of this, do away with this supranational control and withdraw from the convention.
10.5 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have always had a soft spot for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who says the most racialist things with a good deal of charm and sensitivity. I wonder whether he recognises the impact of what he says on black people in his constituency.
We had an admirable example of this tonight, when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was actually hurt by the suggestion that he might have upset my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) by suggesting that something that he had said would give offence to my hon. Friend's coloured relatives. Yet the right hon. Gentleman must know that every time he opens his mouth on race—this was the case again tonight—he deeply offends people who have settled in this country, who were born in this country and are citizens of it, and who expect to live the rest of their lives here. It is offensive to suggest that because they are black or brown they are a potential threat to the stability of this nation.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about how the present birth rate in some of our inner cities will continue and establish for ever the same kind of proportion of black people in the population of those cities he must realise that that situation exists today. But whatever the difficulties, it cannot be suggested that this is a society that is totally unstable and in which even black people feel that they are subject to daily harassment and violence. That is not the case. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels sincerely about this, but I ask him to consider all the evidence.
All the evidence of our past shows that this nation has been formed by successive waves of immigration from abroad and that ultimately those people who were migrants and who suffered in the same way as black migrants are suffering today have integrated into the community and the culture of the community has widened because of their presence. We have all benefited immeasurably from the fact that that is the nature of our society. We are benefiting immeasurably from the presence of black people in our community at present and we shall continue to bene-
1070
fit. It is unfortunate that this essential message, which is now coming across increasingly to most people, has not yet got through to the Government Front Bench. Had it done so, they would never have brought forward the nonsense that is in these rules.
Mr. Stokes: I am interested in the hon. Member's argument. However, I do not think that he is being fair in saying that in the past England has received immigrants from many countries and has absorbed them all. Of course we have, but in tiny numbers. It is the sheer vastness of the present immigration that makes it so different from previous immigration.
Mr. Lyon: I always learnt from my history that the Normans actually swamped the Anglo-Saxons, especially in our inner cities. On the whole I think that we benefited from that.
I should like to turn to the report of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman. I do not think that the Minister did justice to the efforts of the Committee in taking evidence on this matter. In normal circumstances one would expect that there would be a proper debate on the reports of the new Select Committees, otherwise they would not have the impact that they could have. That debate would normally be opened by the Chairman. I accept that in this debate that could not happen, but our report was brought out in order to assist the House in coming to a conclusion about these rules. When we took evidence we discussed who should give evidence before us and we took the advice of others. We came to the conclusion that the people whom we asked for evidence were the best experts on the matters that we had to consider.
We asked the Home Office to give evidence. We asked the Attorney-General to give evidence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refused, for reasons that are indicated in the report. We also asked Professor Jacobs, who was employed as an official of the European Commission of Human Rights, before he became an academic. We asked Lord Scarman, who has an international reputation for the defence of human rights and knows the convention and the institution well. We asked Mr. Anthony Lester, QC, not because he had once been in

1071
the Home Office but because he has more experience of appearing before the commission than any other member of the English Bar.
We discussed the issue in a Committee in which there was a Conservative majority. When we had heard all the evidence we asked whether there was anyone else whom we should call. No one suggested anyone else. The Minister now suggests that we should have called Lord Rawlinson. I know that Lord Rawlinson has a high reputation on the Government Benches. However, I do not think that any Conservative Member would begin to put him in the same class as Lord Scarman, although the Minister appeared to do so. Before the suggestion was made I had not understood that Lord Rawlinson had any expertise relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights, or much experience of it.
The Committee deliberately did not come to a decision on whether the United Kingdom was or would be in breach. The Committee did not regard itself as the Court. What it said it would do at the beginning, and what it did, was to reflect on the evidence. The overwhelming evidence, apart from the Home Office evidence, was that the United Kingdom would be in breach of the rules relating to parents and fiancés. It was clear that we would be in breach of articles 8 and 14 taken together.
Article 8 refers to the defence of family life and article 14 to discrimination in the application of the rules to people who live within the convention area. It is significant that the Home Office could not advance any of the weighty argument to which the Minister referred to deal with the allegation. The Home Office contended that there was a difference between differential treatment and discrimination. Lord Scarman agreed, but he could find no way in which the evidence that had been put before the House by the Government in the previous debate in any way suggested that differential treatment was not discrimination within the meaning of the convention.
If a difference is made between one person and another on the ground of sex or race, and there is no justifiable reason for so doing within the policy that is being pursued, that is discrimination. It is undeniable that there is a difference be-
1072
tween one person and another if they are of different sexes. Even the Home Office accepted that in its evidence. It is now undeniable, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West agreed, that there is a difference in relation to race, and certainly in relation to fiancés. I should have thought that that applied in relation to parents. If that is so, it is impossible to conceive a situation in which the European Commission of Human Rights or the Court will acquit the Government of a breach of the convention.
There are two choices. The Government can do as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested and retire from the convention altogether. I think that the hon. Gentleman's advice to burglars was that the law is wrong, so we should withdraw from it. I cannot believe that the Government, with their pretended record on law and order, will say that because we are in breach of the law we should abandon our adherence to the European convention.
Mr. Budgen: That is not right.
Mr. Lyon: That is exactly the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Budgen: No.
Mr. Lyon: I think that the Government might try to shrug it off. However, it is impossible to shrug off a breach of the convention when we are a signatory member of the convention and have said that we shall faithfully honour its observations. We have always adhered to its decision, whatever it was, and tried to implement it.
Mr. Peter Archer: So that he shall not be misunderstood, will my hon. Friend confirm that he would not suggest that we could lawfully withdraw from our obligations under the convention?
Mr. Lyon: I do not suggest that we could do so, any more than the burglar could lawfully withdraw from the provisions of the Theft Act, but the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West seemed to be getting near to suggesting that.
Mr. Budgen: I was advocating that we should withdraw from the convention. That is lawful.
Mr. Lyon: That would not save the Government from the embarrassment that would come about when they are found to be in breach of the convention because of the passage of this rule when they are adhering to the convention. The Minister of State shakes his head, but the overwhelming weight of the evidence is in the document. There is no way in which one can argue that there was not discrimination. It is true that the Committee did not in the end say so, because even where there were some pointed remarks in the report they were taken out by the Conservative majority.
But the Committee said clearly that in assessing whether the differential treatment was discrimination the Commission was entitled to look at all the circumstances of the case, including party manifestos, party speeches, such as that of the new Secretary of State before the last election, which propounded this doctrine, the television interview of the Leader of the Opposition, as she then was, which contained the famous word "swamping" and speeches by supporters of the Government in the House.
Anyone who looks through the speeches in this debate as well as the last debate will find plenty of evidence of the intention of the rules, but the most significant information is the evidence put forward by the Government in support of the rules. When they referred to figures before the report came out they always referred to the New Commonwealth and never to the immigrants from elsewhere in the world. Yet one-third of those coming in for settlement at any given time in the past five or 10 years have been white people from the Old Commonwealth or foreign countries.
What is most significant of all is that when the Government talk about the problems of primary immigration set by fiancés they totally neglect the figures from the white Commonwealth or from the white foreign countries of the world. In 1978 10,000 came into this country for marriage, 5,500 of them coming from the white areas of the world. Practically none of them will be affected by this change of rule, because of the concessions that have been made progressively by the Home Secretary.
The latest concession—the one that now allows a woman to bring in a husband if she was the daughter of a person
1074
born here—is more racialist than any of the other concessions. It aggravates the racialist implications of the rules. Far from saving the Government before the Commission, it will make the case much worse.
In addition, the Government go on talking about their difficulties in applying a similar critical exemption for women coming into the country, because they say that there is a statutory provision in the 1971 Act that would have to be repealed.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Lyon: I shall not give way, because I must get on. If it were really argued that the presence of people coming for work, which is what primary immigration means, was the real threat to our economy, it should be remembered that 40 per cent. of the migrant women who enter this country, just like 40 per cent. of women already here, go out to work. Therefore, 40 per cent. of the 15,000 women who came in 1978 for marriage are likely to go out to work. If that were the real reason, the same provision would be applied to women as is applied to men. It is not. Clearly, that will be used against the Government.
The leader of the Liberal Party pointed to working holidaymakers, thousands of them coming in from the white areas of the Commonwealth each year to work. They are not to be excluded. The exclusion is only in relation to those coming from the black areas of the Commonwealth.
There is an even worse case that will have to be taken into consideration by the Commission. Under the 1973 rules, as a result of a revolt among Conservative Back Benchers, a provision was introduced that was not contained in the previous rules, namely, that anyone who had a grandparent born in this country has a free right of entry. By definition, that applies only to white, and 3,357 such people came here in 1978. That is more than the total saving that the Minister has estimated for these changes in the rules. He is keeping out fewer than 3,000 black people and still allowing in 3,500 white people, almost all of whom are coming for work.
If the right hon. Gentleman is really concerned about primary immigration and

1075
about the threat to jobs he will therefore want to change the rule applying to the grand-patrial clause. But he does not. It is obvious, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West admitted, somewhat to the embarrassment of his Front Bench, that the real reason for these changes in the rules is a racialist one.
The changes have a racialist implication, they have a racialist intention, and those Government supporters who abstained on the last occasion because they felt in all conscience that they could not go into the Division Lobby with their Government on this issue now have the evidence not of me—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) asked me on the last occasion how I could be sure that we were in breach of the European Convention—but of Lord Scarman, Mr. Lester and Professor Jacobs, three people who are concerned intimately with the operation of the convention, that we are in breach. If Government supporters really want to save their Government from embarrassment their proper course of action tonight is to vote against these rules and stop them.
10.22 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I must congratulate the Opposition on taking valuable parliamentary time to debate a subject that is of such great relevance, that is such a great national issue, and is one of the difficulties facing us today, especially in the light of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said about the numbers being so small that one might almost say that it was not worth debating them. We are debating a very minor alteration to a legacy bequeathed to the nation by hon. Members of both parties.
Immigration and its control have commanded and will command many hours of debate and discussion, but I suggest that much of the argument engendered by Opposition Members is pure political hypocrisy aimed at pandering to a minority already over-protected by a wealth of legislation, biased rules and numerous statutory boards and bodies. That about 3 per cent. of our population command such important attention immediately gives them a special place in society and one that has brought its own recrimination from those who, despite
1076
their indigenous claim, do not enjoy this special immunity.
Much of the humbug practised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the Liberals, is apparent in their constant accusation of discrimination and racialism levelled at those who recognise that backgrounds are different, that cultures do not necessarily mix and that even the distinction of the colour of skin is difficult for some people to accept.
To assume immediately that intending inhabitants from countries many thousands of miles from their new home will be given an enthusiastic welcome is to ignore some basic nationalistic feelings that are natural and inherent. The majority of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have known no other home than these isles, and they do not intend otherwise. They are proud of their identity and patriotism. We cannot assume that they will readily accept any jet-age migrant who happens to choose these islands as his home. They are bound to feel some antagonism towards those who bring new customs, new habits, new standards that they themselves will not accept, new social behaviour and, regrettably, a certain arrogance that at times is almost anti-British.
It must be against this background and in full recognition of the wishes and feelings of the indigenous people that we consider a further tightening of the rules and prevent our country being further overrun by immigrants. The annual figure of about 50,000, boosted by at least that many again by illegals and overstayers, is still far too high, and the Government should reduce it drastically.
In the debate in December I expressed the wish that the original alterations, including the change in the much-abused fiancé rule, were only the hors d'oeuvres. If this is the first course, many hon. Members and many more people outside are still waiting for the main course.
A view is readily canvassed that immigration should cease immediately and only genuine cases of hardship and family misery should qualify. I would not support that view if I felt that we were going back on promises by previous Administrations, but if there is no other way to reduce the numbers substantially a rearrangement of old commitments may be necessary.
Mr. Cyril Smith: There is always the gas chamber.
Mr. Carlisle: The British passport has long been abused as an abject excuse to gain access to this promised land of employment, social benefits and opportunity. Our somewhat tarnished image abroad still, seemingly, has little effect on those clamouring to come here. It is unbelievable that at a time of great national difficulty, when five years of Socialist profligate spending has pushed inflation to an intolerable level and unemployment is rising, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly those in the Liberal Party, call for a relaxation of controls. The Labour Party granted amnesties to illegal entrants and now chastises the Government for attempting to protect their people against an even larger burden on their already overstretched services.
Do not the Opposition realise that further immigration will do more damage to those already here than to any other sector of society? Do they not appreciate that their call for increased public expenditure must be financed by those who are already struggling to settle into life in circumstances entirely different from those to which they are used? Do they not realise that many of these intending settlers will not be able to speak English, let alone wish to accept new customs that are themselves alien to their religious upbringing?
The burden upon some of our education services is already intolerable. At a school in my constituency an estimated 89 per cent. of pupils are of ethnic orgin and at times the yearly intake contains a 50 per cent. entry of those totally unable to speak English. Do these figures not put a special difficulty on those who are expected to provide every educational facility against a background of falling financial resources? Can we reasonably expect the taxpayer to finance the teaching of English in our schools to a continuing stream of migrants and their children?
If Opposition Members are so anxious to relax all the rules that we have and to prompt a further large influx of migrants, will they explain to their constituents that this could bring further special difficulties, which could be burdensome to our inhabitants, including of
1078
course, those recently settled here? As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—said, this extra burden on our social services can no longer be tolerated.
These intended changes are minor indeed. The fiancé rule has been much abused, as Labour Members have successively admitted. Parents of any age cannot expect automatic entry without some visible means of support, as they cannot expect that even their dependants are certain to welcome a further burden on their family budget.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the rules about foreign fiancés, as originally drafted, had applied in full, Prince Albert would never have been allowed to marry Queen Victoria?
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend should perhaps have seen that and spoken to the Home Secretary at that time.
The au pair has become an easy excuse for another form of entry. The description "student" can cover a multitude of activities, and access can be readily gained for attendance at some pseudo-educational establishment, many of which are completely unregistered. Admission for temporary stayers has led to an abuse that even the Home Office admits is largely undetected. Indeed, the phrase "passengers coming for temporary purposes" can also include a wedding guest who fails to return home after the ceremony.
Although these rules are designed further to restrict primary immigration, there must be an increasing worry that ethnic families tend to be large and almost unlimited in the number of their dependants.
My hon. Friend should be concerned that these measures may still prove inadequate to the primary task of reducing numbers to a trickle and without doubt further restrictions will be necessary. Let not this Government flinch from taking such measures. There is a real concern among the people that too many are taking advantage of our misplaced hospitality; that too many immigrants are overstaying; that too many are abusing the rules; and that too many are living in the belief

1079
that Britain is a paradise for any who choose to come here.
These rules will go some way to correcting the situation, but let them be the forerunner of more to come.
10.30 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: If I do not reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), I hope that he will not assume that silence implies assent. The House has listened to his views, and in the interests of the good name of this House I hope that it will never have to listen to a repetition of them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) indicated at the outset of the debate that I might seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be brief and confine myself to the issue of the incompatibility of the Government's proposals with the obligations of this country under the European Convention on Human Rights. If I abstain from comment on any other aspects of this debate it is not because I have no views on them and it certainly is not because I have no constituency interest in them. I have large numbers of constituents who have reason for real anxieties on these matters. But many hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to take part and it would be unfortunate if it appeared that this debate were monopolised by the Front Benches.
The Opposition are troubled by the cavalier attitude of the Government to their obligations under international law. We should be grateful to the Select Committee for the care that it devoted to this matter. We should also be grateful to those who gave evidence to the Select Committee. It might have been courteous to the Select Committee and to its witnesses if the Government had given the House the benefit of the views of a Law Officer, or at least given the House the benefit of their reactions to the evidence submitted by those witnesses. I say nothing of the provisions relating to parents and grandparents, though I am not by any means saying that even with the proposed further amendments there is no further reason for anxiety.
I say nothing of article 3 of the convention, although it seems to me that
1080
there might be an argument that the Government's proposals amount to degrading treatment, as was suggested by certain of the witnesses before the Select Committee. I say nothing of what Lord Scarman referred to as the "nasty little provisions" relating to au pair girls.
I invite the attention of the House to the fiancé provisions, where it seems to me that there is clear reason for anxiety The proposed rules 50 and 52 as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) indicated, seem to make a distinction between men and women, between British born and foreign-born women, and between women coming from different religious and cultural backgrounds. I have heard no suggestion that those distinctions are not made.
Article 8 of the convention provides that
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life."
Whether the Commission would find an infringement of that article taken alone would depend upon the facts. However, I do not seek to take the matter any further than it was taken by the Minister of State. But, of course, the Commission is entitled to consider it in conjunction with article 14. That article reads:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
It has emerged from the jurisprudence of the Commission that article 14 is applicable only to the rights set out in the other articles in the convention. But there is a strong body of opinion that the Commission may find an infringement of article 14 in relation to a right arising under another article even if there is not an infringement of that other article taken alone. Clearly, if article 14 operated only where there was an independent infringement of the convention, it would be superfluous. And that view is expressed by the Commission in the Belgian linguistic case.
So the Commission is entitled to consider whether article 8 imposes distinctions based on race, sex, religion or any of the other factors in article 14. There was little doubt by any of the Select Committee witnesses that it would not be

1081
arguable that there are not such distinctions in rules 50 and 52.
But a further matter must be considered. Differences of treatment are not necessarily discrimination within article 14. It depends upon whether the difference in treatment has an objective and reasonable justification. Professor Jacobs, in evidence to the Committee, expressed the view that in deciding that question the only factors which could properly be taken into account are those which are either inherent in the nature of the right—that is, inherent in article 8—or those designed to remedy existing inequalities.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that Professor Jacobs is wrong. Let us direct our minds to the wider range of factors, as Lord Scarman and Mr. Lester did. Their clear view is that the reasons set out by the Government do not justify the discriminations. Clearly the magnitude of the problem which the measures are designed to resolve must be considered with the relevance of the difference in the treatment of the problem. I shall not trouble the House by repeating the evidence of Mr. Lester.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why not?
Mr. Archer: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is suggesting from a sedentary position. If he finds Mr. Lester's evidence amusing, the humour has escaped those who have taken the trouble to sit through the debate.
Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) invites me to get to my feet. I suggest that the evidence of Mr. Lester, although he is a most eminent QC, can hardly be said to be unbiased.
Mr. Archer: Then we may ask whether the evidence of Lord Scarman is unbiased. I invite the House to consider what Lord Scarman said. He was examining the paragraph which states that
"the parties to the marriage have not met."
He said:
"Why it should be thought that (c) adds anything to the control of primary immigration I do not know. It just seems to me to be an attack on the social habits and customs of people who have come to this country and who are living according to the customs in which they were brought up."
1082
That is the view not of a Socialist politician but of Lord Scarman.
The Government have two possibilities. They may say, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said "Let us acknowledge that this would be an infringement of the convention. Let us ignore our legal obligations and say that we propose to ignore them". When my hon. Friend for York was speaking, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested that that might be done lawfully.
Mr. Budgen: I still say that.
Mr. Archer: It is clear that it cannot be done lawfully. Article 65 of the convention provides for the denunciation by a high contracting party after six months' notice, but it makes clear that such a denunciation:
"shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under the Convention in respect of any act which,…may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became effective."
So it is perfectly clear that the Government cannot escape by doing that. But then they might say simply that they just do not mind whether they are infringing their international obligations. That is a possible attitude, and, I should have thought, less hypocritical than the attitude which they are maintaining. But let it not be said after that that the Conservative Party is the one which believes in observing legal obligations. Let it not be suggested, either, that this is anything to do with the EEC. The European Convention on Human Rights is not an instrument of the EEC. The parties to it are not members of the EEC, and it has nothing to do with the EEC.
All that we have heard at the moment from the Government is an invitation to the House to proceed with these amendments and to argue the case if and when it arises.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: In considering the alternatives under the convention, has my right hon. and learned Friend forgotten that there is another possibility, and that is that the Government might not renew the right of individual petition? Does he agree that that would be the most shameful of all possible courses?
Mr. Archer: I certainly had in mind the point that my right hon. and learned

1083
Friend mentioned. But I was a little reluctant to put ideas into the Government's head. The fact is that that option will not arise in any event until 1981, because our present ratification extends until that year. So that would not avail the Government either.
All that we have heard from the Government at the moment is that they are not prepared to ensure that they are in conformity with their international obligations before they invite the House to ratify these proposals. I should not have thought, in those circumstances, that it was unreasonable for hon. Members to suggest that we might have had the views of a Law Officer. Where the blame lies I would not know, and perhaps we are not entitled to ask. the Government where lies responsibility for decisions taken within the Government. But whether the blame rests with Home Office Ministers or someone else, I echo the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s), and I hope that in the winding up the debate the Home Secretary will answer some of these questions.
Parliament is being asked to approve amendments to the rules, the legality of which in international law is, at the very lowest, open to grave doubts. There has been a debate over the last few years on whether we ought to have a Bill of Rights. Some have argued for such a Bill with entrenched provisions which would limit the power of Parliament to approve legislation in conflict with it. I do not share that view. Some, like Lord Scarman in his original Hamlyn lecture, express the view that we might have a Bill of Rights which would require a special built-in parliamentary majority in order to pass legislation in conflict with it. Some have thought that it might be introduced simply as part of our general legislation, but subject to being overridden by Parliament. But at each stage there have been those who have said "Why do we need it? The citizens of this country already have these rights. They are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights". They have gone on to say "We can accept without question that Parliament would not behave so irresponsibly as to pass legislation which is in conflict with our obligations under the convention". So they have said "Why do we need a Bill of
1084
Rights in this country? Parliament may be relied upon to avoid the necessity for a Bill of Rights".
I promised to be brief. I rose only to say that that argument will be put to the test in the Lobbies tonight.
10.43 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I do not anticipate that many Members on the Opposition Benches will agree with what I have to say. I do not anticipate that some of my hon. Friends will agree with what I have to say. But I do anticipate that the great majority of people in this country will agree with what I have to say and will wish that it was said loud and clear in the House.
Today is a sad day. It is not a sad day because this is a sexist and racist measure, as it has been described, and as it has been put before the House, but it is a sad day because it brings into focus once again how completely out of touch Governments in this country and some hon. Members in this debate have been with the people of the country that they purport to represent.
We know what the people want. We are their elected representatives. We alone can introduce the measures that they require. We have failed. Although I hope that the measures that we are introducing today will help, we still have a long way to go.
Britain is a crowded island. It is a British island, and the repository of British culture and the British way of life. Through negligence and timidity we have imported 2 million people of a different culture. If, at any stage, we had put to the British people the question "Do you wish to bring into this country 1 million, 2 million or 3 million people of a different culture?", do we really believe for one moment that they would have answered "Yes"? If we assume that the answer would have been "No", we must all agree that so far we have failed.
I speak of a different culture. I do not say that it is a better culture or a worse culture, that it is an inferior culture or a superior culture; I say simply that it is a different culture. There is nothing better or worse about the smell of curry or the smell of tripe and onions. There is nothing inherently better or worse

1085
about the European system of marriage or the arranged marriage. But, as we all know, the expression says
"When at Rome do as the Romans do."
I suggest to those new Britons that when in Britain they should do as the Britons do. Otherwise, they will build up a store of antagonism that, one day, may well erupt into a bloody and civil strife.
People have criticised these measures because they say that they are racialist, as if racialist is a word of abuse. What does racialist mean? It means tribal. After all, man is a tribal animal. We have a feeling of kith and kin for people like ourselves, with our own background and culture. If we wish to look at man being a tribal animal we do not have to look any further than our own country to see how true that is.
Consider Northern Ireland, where people of basically similar race and culture, with a little bit of difference in their religion—it is the same Christian religion but with different aspects—spend their leisure hours bombing and maiming each other simply because of the marginal difference between them.
Consider Wales, where the extreme followers of the culture of the Welsh tribe have developed a new hobby—arson. Consider Scotland, where recently there was the fiasco of devolution—people hankering for an identity. That was one of the motivating forces behind it.
If these problems and pressures exist in islands where we have been living together for thousands of years, surely it has been a mad, mad lack of decision to allow the introduction of a massive population of people of Asian cultures. It is surely lunatic to allow the assembly in these islands of 2 million people of different culture, different custom, different religion and different expectation. One aspect that I have missed out is difference in colour. Colour does not make any difference at all. What makes a difference is the different loyalty that often goes with colour.
Mr. Dorrell rose—
Mr. Marlow: I hesitate to give way. There is no time, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend made it clear that he was not talking about race.
1086
He said that he was concerned about those who come to this country, and he spoke of 3 million having arrived in the past 20 years. Will he accept that this country has accepted people coming to these islands for settlement for the 2,000-year period that he mentioned? The Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings, and the French refugees in the 16th century, came to Britain. It was part of our tradition to accept them for settlement and to give them equal rights with our citizens.
Sir Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be difficult to tell an Angle from a Saxon?
Mr. Marlow: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell).
As regards my other hon. Friend, it is true that we have had other people come to these islands, but in nothing like the same quantity and in nothing like the same degree of cultural diversity from the people who were already living here. I would also hazard a guess, knowing the feeling amongst the indigenous population, that this is something that they did not want to arise.
Earlier, in the saga of immigration—[Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend suggest that we took up arms against them?
Earlier, in the saga of immigration, we have spoken of integration. Now the same people are talking not about integration but about a multi-cultural society. I take exception to preaching by theoreticians on the periphery who said, first, that immigration would not be a problem, secondly, that if it was a problem we could integrate it, and now who say "You cannot integrate it, but we are going to have a multi-cultural society." We have have a multi-cultural society. In fact we cities within our cities; states within our State; a land of divided ethnic loyalties.
Soon, like America—look at the fiasco of the vote in the United Nations the other day on Palestine—we will not be ruling the country in the interests of the country; we will be looking from side to side to see what each particular ethnic voter has got to say about anything that we want to bring in as legislation. Is it acceptable that anyone should be granted the privilege, the rights, of British nationality and should choose at the same time to

1087
owe loyalty to another and an alien regime?
With few honourable exceptions—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—politicians have found it difficult to avoid getting bogged down in a world of humbug on this subject. We have inverted the truth. We have rewritten the English language. Cowardice has been referred to as courage; courage has been referred to, as by an hon. Gentleman opposite, as Fascism and as racialism because he does not understand the meaning of the English language and because he inverts it all the time.
We now know that in many of our constituencies the immigrant community is larger than the majority of the party in power. Therefore, we have shrunk from introducing the measures that we know the people of this country would wish, because it would have infringed the expectations of those communities. Is that courage or is that cowardice?
Despite the denial of human rights in many countries round the world—I am very concerned about the denial of rights to people in this country, the electorate in this country—we know that if we grasped the nettle of immigration and based our immigraton policy on people with our own cultural identity we would be faced with the universal approbation of the world community So we have failed to enact measures that we know the bulk of the people of this country would wish. Is that courage or is that cowardice?
We like to be liked. We like the good feelings of our colleagues. We like the plaudits of the liberal press. We have joined together in a conspiracy—
Mr. John Watson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marlow: Really, I would love to give way, but I—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Watson: On the question of courage, I am curious to know whether my hon. Friend regards himself as having been elected to lead public opinion so slavishly to follow it.
Mr. Marlow: I think that on this issue, over which our people have been misrepresented for such a long period and
1088
over which, if anybody stands up and represents their wishes, they believe that they are speaking out of turn and that they will not get anywhere and that to a certain extent they are mad, out of date and are doing something that is not going to succeed. It requires a certain amount of courage, and I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South has shown more courage on this issue than everybody else in the House put together. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Absolute rubbish."]
We like to be liked. We like the plaudits—I am not trying to be liked—of the liberal press. We like to join the cosy conspiracy, where the convention is to stand the world on its head. We know what the people want, but we are frightened of the implications if we try to achieve that which they wish. It is a gradual problem. There is no particular day on which we say the problem is too much and we have to do something about it. We hope that it will go away.
Instead of standing up and demanding action, we have been congratulating each other on the avoidance of mutual embarrassment. We have been subjected to the greatest invasion in the history of this country. There were 2 million immigrants in 1970 and 3 million by 1980 and there will be 4 million by 1990. If the predictions of the OPCS are accurate there will be 5 million by the end of this century. They are people of different cultural backgrounds. In some of our cities our own people will be in the minority.
Even after these rules have been introduced, a new town the size of Northampton will have to be built every five years just to take care of legal immigrants who come into the country. Is that what Labour Members believe the people of this country want? Is that what they believe they have been sent here to achieve? I do not.
What about illegal immigration? Heaven knows how many illegal immigrants have come in, because by its nature no proper estimate can be made. However, no one in authority to whom I have spoken has been in a position to deny that illegal immigration may well be greater than legal immigration. What we do know is that during a period of 20 months one-third of a million Iranians

1089
entered this country—some possibly fleeing from the manic ayatollah—whose return would have been unwelcome.
There is no doubt that very few came on shopping trips. How many stayed? We do not know, and we do not begin to know. What we do know is that during a nine-month period, when 18,000 inquiries were sent out by the special overstayers' tracing unit, only 1,300 of those people were found. What has happened to the rest?
Each year, as air travel becomes relatively cheaper, more people flood into the lush pastures of Western Europe. Turks and Yugoslavs go to Germany; Algerians and Moroccans go to France; Nigerians, Iranians and Cypriots come to the United Kingdom. There are great pressures to come. There are great opportunities that lure such people to the lush pastures of the Western European countries. The more who come, the more there are to tell the people back home that it is worth trying to come. How easy it is for people to come as visitors or students and to spend one minute with an immigration officer—such people can show him a document, perhaps a hotel booking and a bit of cash to show that they have a legitimate purpose for their visit—and then to disappear!
Is it difficult to get hold of a national insurance card? Is it difficult to set up a new life or identity? The worst that can happen is that one will be liable to deportation. Is not it worth taking a chance, especially when the resources to do anything about it are at present so woefully inadequate? These rules go nothing like far enough, but I am glad that we have a clear, unambiguous and irrevocable commitment to introduce a register and a quota. I hope that those come soon, and I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend that that will be the case.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to deny that the people of this country would like to know how many people their Government will invite to share their homeland with them. But even these rules will be nothing like enough.
We should perhaps ask what it is that legal immigrants say to themselves as they prepare to come. Do they want to
1090
come here to contribute to the British way of life, or to the glory of the British people, or do they come for their own material, selfish benefit? There is nothing wrong with that. We would do the same if we were in their position. However, if they come here for their own selfish benefit, why do we extend those privileges to their relatives?
I know that we have not said that we shall withdraw the ability of relatives to come here. We talk about the tragedy of divided families. But families can reunite in both directions. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say, and I look forward to some encouragement on these issues.
11 pm
Mr. John Sever: I, too, shall be interested to hear what the Home Secretary has to say in reply to a remark made a few moments ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because it was my clear understanding, from the Government's position thus far, that there was no commitment to the register and the quota. The House and the country will want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has changed his ground in the last few days, because these are essential matters of fundamental importance to all the ethnic minority communities in Britain. I am sure that they will not want the right hon. Gentleman to echo the words of his hon. Friend.
A few moments ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) outlined very efficiently the deep-seated worries that Labour Members have about the Government's stance on the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Government, with their eyes wide open, are taking us into what seem to be endless difficulties in Europe over the convention, we shall want the Home Secretary this evening to tell us why he did not find it necessary to take the advice of his Law Officers or to bring them to the House today, and to say why he feels either that he does not need their advice or has taken it but has not seen fit to bring it to the House during the debate. These are very deep-seated and real worries that Labour Members have about this country's position concerning the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is incumbent upon the Government tonight

1091
to tell us exactly where we stand on that issue.
Earlier in the debate the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the inner cities of England as having large percentages of representatives of the ethnic minority communities. He lighted on a figure, which he put at a third or even a half in some cities, as being in some ways a threat to the stability of England and to our future, and so on. I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but at one moment he seemed rather to lose sight of his argument and to convey to the House that if we have this kind of proportion of ethnic minority settlement in our big cities we are heading for disaster. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, but I think that that is what he said, if I do not misquote him.
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my constituency we have that figure now. We have 35 to 40 per cent. of the electorate within ethnic minority groups. From the work that I do with them, I can tell the House that there is no threat—as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman and by some Conservative Members—to our future. These are men and women who wanted to come to Britain, to play a part and to make a contribution, and not just to go round with their hands out, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. They came to Britain to find a new opportunity, to settle, to make a worthwhile life for themselves and their families, and to make a contribution.
A large number of them have now settled into the business community, they are working within the professions, and they are making contributions to the whole spectrum of social and domestic life in Britain. They have been assimilated without difficulty. The only difficulty that has arisen has been where it has been imported into city centres, such as that in Birmingham and elsewhere, by the National Front and by other racist organisations seeking to foment trouble among us. When that has happened there has certainly been difficulty, because no one will sit back and listen to arguments of that sort—many of which have been represented in this House this evening—without arguing back. But, apart from those imported difficulties that we
1092
have had to face from time to time, the communities are happy and relatively well assimilated into their surroundings.
For the most part, they have been the most difficult surroundings into which to settle, because they have come into areas where the host community was already disadvantaged and underprivileged. Even so, they have made a contribution and they are seeking no more than natural justice. They are seeking no more favours than are any other members of the community. What they are seeking is the sort of protection that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have sought to argue for them today—the sort of protection that they need against miserable and squalid bits of paper such as the one that we have before us this evening, containing elements of racism and sexism which should not be tolerated by any sort of civilised society.
11.5 pm
Mr. John Stokes: We seldom debate immigration in the House and I am glad that we are doing so tonight. I think that I have heard every speech. I used to think that on this subject I was a member of the moderate Right. I am glad to see that tonight I have been joined by many of my hon. Friends. I was delighted to hear their honest if unsophisticated and robust speeches.
I admire their fluency after only nine months. I could not speak with such fluency after nine years. We must hold them in great respect. They have a message for the House and especially for the Opposition. They have just been elected to the House and they know the real feelings of the people. The House will know my feelings on this subject.
As usual, the most important speech tonight was that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I go almost all the way with him in his analysis. Where I disagree with him is when he says that because of the vast amount of immigration over the last generation England will became ungovernable and English cities will become difficult to run. That is not my fear. We can avoid that.
My fear is not the damage to good race relations, important though they may be. My fear is the damage to the essential identity of this old, historic nation. I cannot think why those of us who love

1093
our country and its history and wish to maintain its Englishness should be criticised as odd, obscure or difficult. Surely it is basic. We all belong to our neighbourhood, town, village or county. What is wrong in that? Nothing. It is what used to be called roots. We must protect and defend that.
The English vocabulary has been altered by newspeak, if one likes. When I was a young man a man of discrimination was a man to be looked up to. He was a man of taste and discernment. It is only recently that the word "discriminate" has become a kind of criminal word. When I was young one was proud to be an Englishman. Nowadays that is not so obvious.
Therefore, there is a case to be heard from the Government Benches which some of my hon. Friends may have put in a rough manner. Representing an industrial seat as I do, the trade unionists in my constituency would understand and sympathise with a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friends. Sometimes Opposition Members, perhaps through nervousness or because they feel uncomfortable about the subject, laugh. We all know that they would not dare laugh in front of their own constituents on a matter that affects them so vitally.
The right hon. Member for Down, South set the scene so well for us. We have had immigration for 25 years. It is not the same as the Huguenots, the Jews and the Poles. It is different. Immigration involves enormous numbers of quite different people. It is something new in our history. It says a great deal for our kindness, tolerance and civilised approach that we can absorb such vast numbers of people in the space of one generation. Do we get no credt for that from both sides of the House?
Let us imagine, for example, what would have happened if the same number of people had settled in France. Imagine what the French would be saying. I believe that no other country but England could have had such a shock and got over it so well so far. We know of the pressures on housing, schools, the National Health Service and employment at a time of rapidly rising unemployment. Worse than that is the loss of identity for English people who have had to leave—I know this from direct experience, as
1094
do many other hon. Members—their houses, their streets and neighbourhoods to make way for the newcomers. I went to see a Minister in the last Government about this and he was very kind and sympathetic. He said that the young people could adapt. Perhaps they can. It is the older Englishman who suffers—his whole way of life is being turned upside down.
In one street I know of the immigrants wanted to change a house into a mosque. There was tremendous local feeling about having a mosque in the centre of a very small English town. All the residents in that street had to leave. Eventually there was one man left—a retired cavalry trooper. He said to me in that marvellous Midland lilt "What have I done to deserve it, Sir?" I said "We, your betters, have let you down." Hon. Members may laugh, but Englishmen have feelings too. I do not understand why their feelings should be laughed at. These are matters of great substance, and the Opposition and the Liberal Party do themselves a disservice by laughing at matters that their constituents would not think amusing.
If we are to save our country and offer it a settled future we must bring immigration to a halt. Therefore, I recognise that these few rules—poor and feeble as they are—are a step towards that goal.
One has only to ask a Frenchman, a German, a Swiss or an Italian what they think about our immigration rules, and they will say that they are astonished by our attitude. They are much stricter in their control of people entering their countries, some of which are larger and richer than this country. It is a matter of common sense and reasonable judgment.
We were sent to this House to represent our constituents. After all, apart from defeat in war, one of the most vital things for a country is to protect and defend its way of life, its history, its beliefs, its culture and its togetherness. What is wrong with that? Nothing at all. That is what made us a great nation. I think that it is insulting to tell immigrants—many of whom I know well—that they should be integrated with us. Why should they? They are proud people. They have their own history, traditions, customs, morals and religion. We cannot expect them to integrate. They will remain aliens within our midst for centuries. That is inevitable,

1095
and we must have the courage to face the facts.
I do not fear civil strife, but I do fear that the England we know and love will be lost in a welter of new and different races, whose loyalty will still be to their original homeland, and whose customs will remain unchanged. These are very real problems.
They may not be problems to some of those who pontificate from constituencies in those green fair lands—not always in England—where there are no immigrants at all. We in the Midlands do not want to be lectured by those people. We who stand for the Midlands seats have to stand for the English working class, who have been let down by those superior people living often in Sussex manor houses who presume to tell the English working classes how they will get on. The English working classes have very much better manners than those who purport to tell them how to behave. Those are the people that I am proud to represent tonight.
I am glad that in my party there are many hon. Members who will stand up and speak for their beliefs on this fundamental matter, which concerns every man, woman and child in this country.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be brief because the House would like to hear the views of the Home Secretary, who has listened to the debate from the beginning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said all that was necessary about the implications of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I only add that if Mr. Lester is right, if the views expressed in the debate can be called in aid on any ruling, and having listened to the hon. Members for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I believe that the Government would lose their case after the first 60 seconds.
Those hon. Members belong to the brigade that believes that the Government have reneged on their election commitment. In a straightforward sense they have. It was foolish to have the commitments in the first instance. We had the quota and the register, and there was no shortage of knowledge. There was a White Paper and the Franks report. It
1096
was a mistake to enter into the commitments, and I do not believe that they will be implemented.
I regret that the rules are before us. They will do little for numbers. The hon. Member for Luton, East is wrong to suggest that I am thereby suggesting that on that ground there is no need for the debate. I am arguing that Conservatives who support the Government on the ground that the rules will do something about swamping and about numbers are mistaken. The effect will be so marginal on numbers as to be not worth while. The Opposition argue that for other reasons the rules should not be implemented. They are a fig leaf to cover the nakedness not of Government policy but of what was promised before the election.
Sadly, the rules will be approved. I say that as someone who believes that the immigration control is firm and that the rules are irrelevant. The previous Labour Government published a Green Paper on nationality. There are many papers on the subject in the Home Office, and I for one would not worry if the present Government were able to examine the papers of the previous Administration.
It will not be easy to get a nationality measure through the House. I hope that when the White Paper appears we shall see a Bill following it. I hope, too, that we shall have a chance to consider it in a pre-legislation Committee. If my experience is anything to go by, we shall all be at sixes and sevens if we go baldly into Committee. It will make the EEC and trade union legislation of 1971 seem all too familiar. It will not take quite so long to pass through the House, but it will be lengthy.
If the House is to put its mind to questions of nationality and citizenship, we must remember that we have not had citizenship legislation over the years, but nationality measures stemming from the empire on which the sun never set. It is important that we get future legislation right. We must ensure that it fits in some degree into what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was saying.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), as always—this applies to many matters—made me think. When Nye Bevan was in the House he

1097
said gently of a colleague that he reminded him of a pre-war Trojan car. He said that when he went on the road and got into the tramlines he always ended up in the same depot. The right hon. Gentleman, with differences of argument and emphasis, always comes back to the one point, namely, that there is tragedy and near revolution in what is happening. I do not believe that. There are problems from immigration, and I understood what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was saying. I was brought up in a working-class area where we were close unto ourselves. It is easy for others outside that environment to laugh at the fears of such people. I do not believe that hon. Members were laughing at the problems behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
There are problems that arise and they will continue to present themselves. They are little different from the problems in Europe. The Europeans have Yugoslavs and Turks, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North was saying. They have Greeks, Algerians and Moroccans. In Europe since the war we have geared the cheap part of our economy, or our simple processes, to cheap labour from the underdeveloped parts of the world. There are problems in inner cities. In most instances—this applies to my area, and I accept that there are not many immigrants in my constituency—the immigrants have moved into areas where problems already existed. They have not created the problems. They have become part of the problem areas.
I have no doubt that in the end the recent immigrants from the New Commonwealth will play their part in the same way as the Jews who came in at the turn of the century, although not in the same numbers, play their part now. There will not be instability. The Asians—small in number in my constituency—are law-abiding.
There are problems, and we shall face them in the way that we always have in this country. We shall have to return to the subject of race relations. We are not seeking a deadening uniformity. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge talked about being proud of being English. I cannot say that, because I am not an Englishman. I hope that my children, who have been brought up in
1098
England, will be, but they will be proud in a different way from the hon. Gentleman. I do not say that with any disrespect. Those who come and live amongst us will have their own communities and their own attitudes, which will develop over the years. It will not be easy.
The rules that we are considering are small. They are a fig leaf. They add up to very little. They do harm to race relations. We should concentrate on good race relations. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will vote against the rules tonight.
11.20 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have deliberately taken very little time to wind up the debate in order to let as many hon. Members as possible speak during the debate, and because my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening the debate set out the position very clearly.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) welcomed various changes. He said that that resulted from time having been given to debate a White Paper before the rules were laid. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who gave credit for the fact that the debate was taking place in Opposition time, will also give credit for the fact that the Government gave time for a full day's debate on the White Paper, and made changes in the rules as a result of that debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds. South for what he said about that.
Certainly the figures released last week show that the numbers of immigrants have been reduced, but there is still great pressure to come to this country. The numbers are still substantial, and there are substantial numbers of husbands and fiancés. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) made an important point about their entry and the conditions about their entry, based on his own experience in India. I am grateful for what he said about that.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also said that his party, if given the opportunity, would revoke the rules. If the present Leader of the Opposition still leads his party then, he will have created a remarkable occasion. He will

1099
have about-turned not once but twice on this subject, because he it was who took exactly the same view in 1969 as I am taking today about this problem. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South says that since then he has changed his mind, thinking that he was wrong. The Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to say whether he thinks that he was wrong, although I noticed that he had the temerity to put his name at the top of the list of names attached to the motion. It is for him to explain how, if he had to do it, he would turn about twice.
The leader of the Liberal Party raised the question of an inquiry. There will be an opportunity, both in the discussions on the White Paper on nationality, which we shall publish this summer, and subsequently I hope—though I cannot commit the Government to a particular time for legislation—during the passage of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South is right to say will be very complicated and difficult legislation.
I do not intend tonight to go into some of the wider immigration issues. I shall confine myself to the rules, but I have noted what has been said. I can understand that the complexity of the issue of nationality will be accompanied by some extremely lively debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) also mentioned the importance of the nationality Bill as a longer-term measure, describing the rules as being for the shorter term.
My hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others raised the question of the future following the introduction of the rules. We said at the election that we would introduce the rules. We have done so. We said that we would introduce a nationality Bill. We shall do so. We said that we would have a register and a quota. I am not changing what I have said before. I have said on several occasions that both the register and the quota remain part of the Conservative Party's policy. I advise the right hon. Member for Leeds, South that betting is an extremely unprofitable occupation—at least, so I understand.
Let me put one short point to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) before coming to the major mat
1100
ter raised by various right hon. and hon. Members about our position with the rules before the European Court.
The hon. Lady asked about adopted girls. I believe it right to say that such cases would be considered sympathetically. I have in mind the case of a girl arriving in infancy who has lived here since. I reckon that in those cases discretion under the rules would be appropriate and would be exercised. Indeed, I think that I could go further and say that the discretion clearly would be exercised in certain other cases as well. But I think that they would be rightly considered on their merits.
I turn to the point made in various ways by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about the position of the rules with the European Commission and the European Court.
I have always admired one characteristic of the hon. Member for York, because I could never emulate it. He is always utterly convinced that he is right. That may be a good quality, and he has it, and he shows it on all possible occasions. However, I noticed that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, as an experienced former Law Officer, was a good deal more circumspect and, as one who has to take advice from lawyers from time to time, I was careful to listen attentively to the various pieces of advice which he gave the Government.
First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government should ensure that the rules were in accordance with the view of the court and would pass it. But then he said that any such position must be open to doubt. How can anyone ensure something that is admitted to be open to doubt? That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable legal knowledge, said.
Mr. Archer: Whatever part of my speech I said was open to doubt, it was not that part.
Mr. Whitelaw: I took down the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words carefully and, as I was seeking advice, I thought that I did it very wisely.

1101
I do not treat the report of the Sub-Committee in any cavalier way. I regard it as important. But it must be reasonable to say, as I understand is normal in legal cases, that one deals with an actual case when it comes before a court, and one does not make definite pronouncements on what, inevitably, are hypothetical cases. It must be right for us to look, listen and put forward our arguments when a specific case comes before the court, if it does. I should have thought that that was thoroughly sensible.
I have read the evidence to the Sub-Committee. No one giving evidence to the Sub-Committee said anywhere that he was certain. Several said that it was their view, but that they were expressing a view on a hypothetical and not an actual case. It is an actual case that is bound to matter in the event—[Interruption.] I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have some legal knowledge. If he seeks to laugh at what I say, all I can tell him is that I cannot see anything wrong with an argument to the effect that in law one is entitled to deal with an
actual case, but not a hypothetical one. That must be the sensible position for the Government to take. That is the position that we are taking.
Perhaps I should conclude by saying that we believe that these rules deal with the situation with which we are faced. We promised them. We promised the provision on husbands and fiancés. We believe it to be right, particularly when judged against the considerable pressure that there still is to come to this country. We have made a number of other changes in the rules, which have not been mentioned tonight, which I believe are valuable, which make the position clearer for entry clearance officers and which are important also in their own right.
For all those reasons I hope that the House will reject the motion and pass these rules—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 307.

Division No. 219]

AYES

[11.30 pm

Abse, Leo

Cowans, Harry

Foster, Derek

Adams, Allen

Crowther, J. S.

Foulkes, George

Allaun, Frank

Cryer, Bob

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Anderson, Donald

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Davidson, Arthur

George, Bruce

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Ginsburg, David

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

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

Golding, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Deakins, Eric

Gourlay, Harry

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Beith, A. J.

Dempsey, James

Grant, John (Islington C)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dewar, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bidwell, Sydney

Dixon, Donald

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dobson, Frank

Hardy, Peter

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dormand, Jack

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Douglas, Dick

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bradley, Tom

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dubs, Alfred

Haynes, Frank

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Dunnett, Jack

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Eadle, Alex

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Buchan, Norman

Eastham, Ken

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Homewood, William

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Hooley, Frank

Campbell, Ian

English, Michael

Horam, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ennals, Rt Hon David

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

Canavan, Dennis

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Huckfield, Les

Cant, R. B.

Evans, John (Newton)

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Carmichael, Nell

Ewing, Harry

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Faulds, Andrew

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Cartwright, John

Field, Frank

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Fitch, Alan

Janner, Hon Greville

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Flannery, Martin

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Cohen, Stanley

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

John, Brynmor

Coleman, Donald

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Conlan, Bernard

Ford, Ben

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Cook, Robin F.

Forrester, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Spearing, Nigel

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Sprlggs, Leslie

Kerr, Russell

Newens, Stanley

Stallard, A. W.

Kinnock, Nell

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lambie, David

Ogden, Eric

Stoddart, David

Lamborn, Harry

O'Halloran, Michael

Stolt, Roger

Lamond, James

O'Neill, Martin

Strang, Gavin

Leadbitter, Ted

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Straw, Jack

Lelghton, Ronald

Palmer, Arthur

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Park, George

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Parker, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Litherland, Robert

Parry, Robert

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Pendry, Tom

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Powell, Faymond (Ogmore)

Tilley, John

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Prescott, John

Tinn, James

McCartney, Hugh

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Torney, Tom

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Race, Reg

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

McElhone, Frank

Padice, Giles

Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

McKelvoy, William

Richardson, Jo

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Rober's, Albert (Normanton)

Watkins, David

Maclennan, Robert

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Weetch, Ken

McMahon, Andrew

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wellbeloved, James

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Robertson, George

Welsh, Michael

McNally, Thomas

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

McNamara, Kevin

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

McWilliam, John

Rooker, J. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Magee, Bryan

Roper, John

Whitlock, William

Marks, Kenneth

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Wigley, Dafydd

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

Rowlands, Ted

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Ryman, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Sandelson, Nevilie

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Sprlngb'rn)

Sever, John

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Sheerman, Barry

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Maxton, John

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

Winnick, David

Maynard, Miss Joan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Woodall, Alec

Meacher, Michael

Short, Mrs Renee

Woolmer, Kenneth

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mikardo, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

Wright, Sheila

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Silverman, Julius

Young, David (Bolton East)

Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Snape, Peter

Mr. Ted Graham and

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Soley, Clive

Mr. George Morton.

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Altken, Jonathan

Bryan, Sir Paul

Eggar, Timothy

Alexander, Richard

Buck, Antony

Elliott, Sir William

Alison, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Emery, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bulmer, Esmond

Eyre, Reginald

Ancram, Michael

Burden, F. A.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Arnold, Tom

Butcher, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Aspinwall, Jack

Butler, Hon Adam

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Cadbury, Joceiyn

Farr, John

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Fell, Anthony

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Bell, Sir Ronald

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bendall, Vivian

Channon, Paul

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Chapman, Sydney

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Churchill, W. S.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Suttton)

Forman, Nigel

Best, Keith

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bevan, David Gliroy

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fox, Marcus

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Biggs-Davison, John

Cockeram, Eric

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Blackburn, John

Colvin, Michael

Fry, Peter

Blaker, Peter

Cope, John

Galbraith, Hon T. Q. D.

Body, Richard

Corrle, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Critchley, Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowden, Andrew

Crouch, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Giyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dickens, Geoffrey

Goodhart, Philip

Bright, Graham

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Goodhew, Victor

Brinton, Tim

Dover, Denshore

Goodlad, Alastair

Brittan, Leon

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gorst, John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Gow, Ian

Brotherton, Michael

Durant, Tony

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Dykes, Hugh

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Gray, Hamish

1104

1105

Greenway, Harry

Mates, Michael

Rost, Peter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury SI Edmunds)

Mather, Carol

Royle, Sir Anthony

Griffithe, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Grist, Ian

Mawby, Ray

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Grylls, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

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

Mayhew, Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mellor, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Richard (Aidridge-Br'hills)

Hannam, John

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Shersby, Michael

Haseihurst, Alan

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Silvester, Fred

Hastings, Stephen

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Sims, Roger

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Speed, Keith

Hawksley, Warren

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Speller, Tony

Hayhoe, Barney

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Heddle, John

Molyneaux, James

Splcer, Jim (West Dorset)

Henderson, Barry

Monro, Hector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Sproat, Iain

Hicks, Robert

Moore, John

Squire, Robin

Hill, James

Morgan, Geraint

Stainton, Keith

Holland, Philip (Cariton)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hooson, Tom

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Stanley, John

Hordern, Peter

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Steen, Anthony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mudd, David

Stevens, Martin

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Murphy, Christopher

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Howell, Raiph (North Norfolk)

Myles, David

Stokes, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Neale, Gerrard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Needham, Richard

Tapsell, Peter

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Neubert, Michael

Tebbit, Norman

Jessel, Toby

Newton, Tony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Normanton, Tom

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Nott, Rt Hon John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Onslow, Cranley

Thompson, Donald

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Thorne, Neil (llford South)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Osborn, John

Thornton, Maicoim

Kershaw, Anthony

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Kimball, Marcus

Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

Trippier, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Trotter, Neville

Knight, Mrs Jill

Parris, Matthew

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Knox, David

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Viggers, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Patten, John (Oxford)

Waddington, David

Lang, Ian

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wakeham, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Pawsey, James

Waldegrave, Hon William

Latham, Michael

Percival, Sir Ian

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire;

Lawrence, Ivan

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Lawson, Nigel

Pink, R. Bonner

Wall, Patrick

Lee, John

Pollock, Alexander

Waller, Gary

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Porter, George

Walters, Dennis

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Ward, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Warren, Kenneth

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Loveridge, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

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

Luce, Richard

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wheeler, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Raison, Timothy

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McCrindle, Robert

Rathbone, Tim

Whitney, Raymond

Macfarlane, Neil

Rees. Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wickenden, Keith

MacGregor, John

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wiggin, Jerry

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Renton, Tim

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Rhodes James, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wolfson, Mark

McQuarrie, Albert

Ridsdale. Julian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Madel, David

Rlfklnd, Malcolm

Younger, Rt Hon George

Malor, John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Marland, Paul

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marlow, Tony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Marten, Nell (Banbury)

Rossi, Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.

PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
Lords amendments considered.
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
  Clause 1

    OVERSEAS MEASURES AFFECTING UNITED KINGDOM TRADING INTERESTS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out from "above" to end of line 6.
    The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Bernard Weatherill): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take the 17 Lords amendments together.
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: The Opposition have no objection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, we welcome that course.
    Mr. Nott: These amendments are uncontroversial. Most of them are improvements to the wording of the Bill. The Bill's provisions are legal and complicated in character, although they are simple in theory. Because of the considerable legal expertise in another place the Bill returns clarified and more effective in a number of respects. Most of the 17 amendments are either for clarification or declaratory. There are only two substantive amendments and one of them is basically technical.
    11.45 pm
    The first substantive amendment is to clause 6, which has been amended in two ways. It will now operate more simply and effectively in cases where there is more than one judgment debtor. Secondly, the definition of judgment creditor is tightened to take account of cases where the benefit of a judgment is assigned to another person or a contribution claimed by one defendant from another.
    The other substantive amendment permits the United Kingdom to enter into a bilateral agreement for the reciprocal enforcement of "recovery-back" judgments, as provided for under clause 6, with countries with similar legislation.
    I am glad that, as in this House, there was general agreement in the Lords about
    1108
    the desirability and scope of the Bill. This is the first time that I have dealt with Lords amendments and I have no doubt that I shall be out of order. I seek the views of hon. Members on the group of amendments and I shall seek to resolve any difficulties later.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: The United States Government have an interest in the Bill. What representations have been made by the United States Government, directly or indirectly, since the Bill was given a Second Reading? I understand that they have made no direct representations to the Secretary of State since Second Reading. Have the United States Government made any representations about this group of amendments?
    Mr. Nott: The United States Government have not made any representations since Second Reading, so far as I am aware. We have been in touch with a host of people on the Bill's technicalities. I am not aware of any specific, technical proposals by the United States Government. I shall let the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) know in detail of any specific technical representations that have been made, but so far as I am aware there have been no general or technical representations. However, I shall have to check, and I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.
    Mr. David Crouch: I read very carefully the debates in another place, and in particular the proceedings in Committee. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran referred to a description of the Bill in this place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and commented upon by me, to the effect that I was concerned that the Bill was not strong enough. I was concerned in particular with a word that my right hon. Friend used, in that he regarded some aspects of clause 6 as symbolic. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran shared my fear that we might enact the Bill as a symbol rather than as a powerful device to protect British trading interests. Will my right hon. Friend say whether these amendments remove the symbolism, that we are producing the legislation to protect ourselves and that there is more than just symbolism in it?
    Mr. Nott: All the comments made in the Lords were for strengthening rather than weakening the Bill. Lords Amendment No. 15 represents a substantial strengthening of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was concerned on that score. I endeavoured to give in Committee and on other occasions the reasons why it was difficult to strengthen the Bill in the ways that he had sought.
    The amendment is important. Since publication of the Bill we have been approached by several countries which have also been considering legislative action to protect their interests in the way that we are seeking to do here. It has been suggested to us that should some of these other countries introduce provisions along the lines of clause 6 it might be desirable to enter into a bilateral agreement for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments under such decisions.
    The new clause is designed to enable us to give effect to such bilateral agreements should they ever become both feasible and desirable. This could represent a substantial strengthening in the sense that if, for instance, we were not easily able to attach the assets of a particular company in the United Kingdom, means might become available as a result of the new clause whereby as a result of a bilateral agreement with another country those assets could be attached elsewhere. This is a strengthening of the Bill.
    Some of the minor drafting amendments which have come back from the Lords are explanations and represent a minor strengthening of the provisions and wording of the Bill.
    Mr. Crouch rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has spoken once.
    Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: We on the Labour side give a general welcome to the Bill, with the caveat that it does not go far enough. As welcome as the amendments made in another place may be, and they certainly strengthen the Bill, we regret that the Lords did not take their courage in both hands and go just a little further. What obtained in the earlier stages of the Bill still, we believe, obtains today in spite of these amendments.
    Clause 6 still does not go anywhere near far enough, and in our view will to
    1110
    a large extent be ineffective. One of the difficulties is that the resulting clawback judgments would not be recognised in the United States, and any United States defendants to proceedings here would quite easily be able to arrange their affairs so as to have no assets within a jurisdiction where it would be possible for us to exercise a clawback.
    The only reason for that is that the Government have shrunk from going the whole way by allowing clawback proceedings to be brought against subsidiaries of American plaintiffs.
    What the Government say—and they said it in another place by way of justification—is that we must not do in Britain what we condemn under American jurisprudence, where the corporate veil is not only lifted in ways that we would regard as almost indecent, but where they often do not appear to recognise the existence of any veil at all.
    The House will recall that the Secretary of State recognised that there would be a degree of ineffectiveness in practice, but tended to justify this halfway house on the ground that clause 6 would act as a deterrent and would mark our disapproval of American anti-trust legislation. We agree that it is essential to mark our disapproval in that way. If what we say is wrong, the clause should not be included in the Bill. If what the Government say is right, theirs is the duty to make the clause effective.
    It is difficult to understand how the clause, as presently drafted, would act as any real deterrent. Multiple damages in anti-trust cases follow as a matter of course and are not in the discretion of the courts unless the plaintiff fails to claim them. In reality, that is unlikely to follow.
    I ask the Government to think again about the clause, even at this late stage; because they may come to the conclusion—and I hope that they will—that in this wholly new venture, and in the wholly peculiar nature of this legislation, it would be defensible for us to adopt the same course as the Americans in the context of judgments based on legislation which we regard as reprehensible because of its penal character and extraterritorial implications, but not—I hasten to underline—in any other context.
    Sir Graham Page: I understand that the clause will be a deterrent to actions being brought in which multiple damages can be awarded. So far as I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with American lawyers, I understand that they are frightened of the whole Bill, and especially clause 6. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it will be a deterrent to the actions being brought, even if the damages are automatic when judgment is given against the defendant?
    Mr. Thomas: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that it will be a deterrent to some extent. In terms of practice, and in terms of American legislation, provided that the Americans take steps of the sort that I anticipated in by speech on Third Reading, I do not think that the clause will help a great deal. That is what concerns me. In short, the Government are willing to strike, but not to wound. Perhaps they have taken Spenser's advice, which he gave in "The Faerie Queene" when he said:
    "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere, be bold."
    But not too bold.
    12 midnight
    It may be that this is indeed an historic Bill. It may be not the first of the Government's U-turns, but the first of the protectionist measures that they will be forced to take. Anyhow, that is another matter.
    I end as I began. We are anxious that the Bill should be successful and meet the mischiefs that it is intended to meet, but we have serious doubts in that regard.
    Mr. Nott rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Nott.
    Mr. Nott: Perhaps not.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 17 agreed to.
    Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you clarify one point about our proceedings? I make no complaint about how they have gone. The Minister spoke twice—and the House wanted to hear him—and you then offered him the opportunity to speak for a third, time. However, when the hon. Member
    1112
    for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) attempted to intervene a second time, you suggested that that might not be welcome. Would you clarify that matter?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the amendments where being taken together, I took the view that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had his opportunity of speaking to them, whereas the Secretary of State was replying to the speeches that had been made.

BEES BILL
Lords amendment considered.
BEES BILL
  Clause 1

    CONTROL OF PESTS AND DISEASES AFFECTING BEES
    Lords amendment: No. 1 in page 2, line 19, leave out "to" and insert "and".
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minstry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, in the schedule, page 5, line 35, at end insert—
    "9A. Payment of compensation for bees or other things subject to control destroyed in accordance with section 1(4)."
    I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in these amendments.
    Mr. Wiggin: The Bees Bill has been generally welcome both in this House and in another place. It has rightly been seen as a highly desirable measure to prevent the introduction into this country of bee diseases which do not occur here and to combat those which are endemic. One issue only has caused a slight rift in this otherwise harmonious acclaim for the Bill. That is the question whether the Bill should provide for the possibility of compensation for bees compulsorily destroyed by authorised officers in the interests of controlling disease and preventing its spread.

    1113
    As introduced, the Bill continued the policy of successive Governments on the question of compensation. The only difference was that this time the Bill expressly provided in clause 1(6) that no compensation shall be payable. During the course of our debates on the Bill, many arguments have been advanced as to why compensation should be paid in particular circumstances—some real, some hypothetical—and we have explained why we have not found these arguments persuasive. However, it has also been argued that the possibility of compensation being paid should not be ruled out for ever and that there should be a permissive power so that in future it would be open for Governments to decide whether or not to have compensation in any given circumstances.
    It is true that the Bill, as introduced, would have closed the door, but not perhaps for ever because Parliament could have decided at any time on an amendment. But we do not often have new legislation on bee diseases. Indeed, the present Bill is only the second such measure in some 40 years. We see the force of this argument and the Government are therefore willing for the Bill to stand as amended.
    The Lords amendments allow compensation to be paid for bees and other things destroyed because they are diseased or have been exposed to infection. Before any compensation could be paid the detailed provisions would have to be made by order. The amendment to clause 1 would allow for the possibility of compensation in the circumstances covered by clause 1(4) and the amendment to the schedule would allow for orders to include detailed provision for payment of compensation. However—and here I break a small promise not to crack another pun about bees during the progress of the Bill—the sting is in the tail. I must make it clear to the House that, in accepting the Lords amendments, the Government do not intend to pay compensation for bees and other things destroyed in accordance with this legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its privileges, I shall cause an entry to be made in the Journal to that effect.

SMALL BUSINESSES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
12.5 am
Mr. Graham Bright: In recent years the contribution that small businesses make to the prosperity of our country has become increasingly apparent. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought ways and means of encouraging and supporting firms in this sector of the economy. The reasons for that have been straightforward enough. Small businesses employ about one-quarter of our work force and produce one-fifth of our output. They provide the most fertile source of new services and new products in the economy. They allow managerial innovation. Both executives and skilled workers from large industry can use their skills and expertise to create a company of their own and new jobs for others. Because it is a more labour-intensive sector, small businesses play a proportionately greater role in providing essential new jobs.
In asking the Minister to recognise the vital contribution that small businesses can make to our future prosperity, it is right to suggest that the restrictions on them by way of taxation and of a bureaucratic nature be lightened as well. That seems to be the most sensible way to stimulate their growth and to reduce unemployment.
It is unfortunately true that small businesses have been subject to a long-term squeeze in Britain. Their share of manufacturing output and of employment has been almost halved since the 1930s. Our competitors have been much more successful in creating new small businesses and in enjoying the benefits from the jobs and wealth that they provide. Three years ago, for example, West Germany, whose population is only 10 per cent. larger than ours, had 40 per cent. more small firms, and the rate at which new small businesses were created in the United States of America was three times as great as ours. The vast majority of new jobs and of new products came from small firms in the last decade in the United States of America. The figures speak for themselves. Eighty-eight per

1115
cent. of new jobs in America came from firms less than 10 years old, and 66 per cent. of new jobs were created by firms employing fewer than 20 people. Surely, there is a clear lesson for us to learn. The most effective way of stimulating economic growth in Britain is by stimulating our small businesses by helping them with their problems.
I believe that we should consider selective measures to cope with the two biggest problems that small businesses have to face—the problems of taxation and finance on the one hand, and the burden placed upon them by the bureaucratic demands of the State on the other. It is really quite extraordinary that capital transfer tax should prevent family firms from passing from one generation to the next because its annual gifts exemption limit is set so low at £2,000 a year. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider having the courage to redeem the pledge that he made at Norwich in March 1976
"to repeal the tax and to redesign a simpler and fairer pattern of capital taxes as a whole".
There should be measures to prevent capital transfer tax and capital gains tax from being levied on one transaction in some circumstances, which appears to me to be most unfair. Because of inflation, capital gains tax poses an ever-growing threat to the integrity of family firms. It is doubtful, too, whether the provision to offset the losses incurred by small businesses in their first three years against income in the preceding three years, introduced in 1978, is generous enough.
The burden of collecting taxes such as VAT imposed on the small business man is a surprisingly effective deterrent, as I believe studies conducted in the Department of Industry have shown. I do not think that we should for one moment underestimate this deterrent effect. The feeling has been indicated to me by dozens of small business men in my constituency.
The demand for information by the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise and other Government Departments—particularly the effects of form filling—consume time that could have been more profitably spent by small business men in running their businesses and creating wealth. But I have no doubt that the
1116
most formidable obstacle of all is finance for new small businesses—an area in which the clearing banks seem relatively weak, and where no other institutions, least of all the Government, are properly equipped.
I recognise, of course, that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the problems. Some action has already been taken. I welcomed and supported the income tax cuts last year and the rise in the investment income surcharge threshold level to £5,000. The blight imposed on so many areas by the threat of development land tax has been alleviated by raising the threshold from £10,000 to £50,000. Small firms are looking forward to the reform of planning procedures, envisaged in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill now before the House. I would appreciate some comments about that from the Minister. They appreciate the relaxation that there will be of the previously stringent requirements of the Employment Protection Act on dismissals and redundancies.
There is also the prospect that a future Companies Bill will allow small firms to protect their vital commercial information by creating proprietary companies. Some reduction in the volume of information demanded by the Government has already occurred. By granting stock relief in the last Budget, and by raising the qualifying profit limit for corporation tax from the level of £60,000 to £100,000 a year, the Government have relieved the tax position of such companies.
I have been most encouraged by the experiments that the Department of Industry has been conducting in establishing small workshop units in shipbuilding areas, free from some of the restrictions on factories, and by the contacts that it has encouraged between its small firms service, the Post Office staff superannuation fund and small business men in the Eastern region. Each of these steps is welcome as a move towards fulfilling the Conservative Party's manifesto commitment to help small businesses in particular.
It is only right to press my hon. Friend to consider taking further measures. As a small business man myself, I know how important are the points that I have mentioned. If capital transfer tax were to be abolished that would do more than any other measure could to preserve our exist

1117
ing small family businesses. At the very least, provision ought to be made for paying the tax within a gift. This is an anomaly whereby if provision is made for the tax on a gift, the whole is taxed, thereby always leaving the recipient the problem of finding further money for taxation. I am sure that there is an overwhelming case for raising the threshold for corporation tax to take account of inflation. The VAT exemption threshold should also be raised.
There are good grounds for extending the right of small businesses to offset losses in their early years against income tax previously paid from three to five years. There is no reason why we should not at least consider introducing tax incentives of the kind introduced in France in July 1978, but to encourage investment in small businesses. Perhaps the figure of £1,000 a year could be looked at in this respect.
Some thought ought also to be given to preventing very large firms from achieving a dominant position in any market served by a large number of small or medium-sized firms. This may soon be demanded by law in West Germany and would be an appropriate duty for the Monopolies Commission here.
It may well be that the unfair dismissals procedure under the Employment Protection Act should be applied after two years rather than one year, or alternatively that a moratorium should be introduced for businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
Far too many statistical demands are still being made on small businesses, and the authority under which they are sought is often unclear. I think that the suggestions that have been made whereby a mandatory form would be clearly marked would assist.
Most important of all is the need to create a viable loan guarantee system—which could be better described as a small business credit insurance—to support the creation of new small businesses. The clearing banks and other institutions have the money; the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the Department of Industry's regional small firm counselling service have the expertise. We have the examples of America, France and Japan in running such schemes.
1118
Creating such a scheme would be the key to invigorating the entire small business sector. Small businesses would respond with a sense of adventure if we could offer them the right opportunities. We need to ensure that small businesses with the capacity to produce a wider range of goods or services can find the money for expansion. I am sure that the necessary machinery could be set up.
I am equally sure that it is possible to design a self-financing scheme. Loans could be made to small businesses on straightforward commercial grounds. How much could be lent would depend on their existing assets and their capacity to meet the interest charges and capital repayments from the business's cash flow.
I think that it is quite wrong that we should always require personal guarantees or second charges on the private home of small business men. It would be right to include a small element—say. 2 per cent.—to cover possible losses. But I am certain that by using the banks and by confining the Government to an advisory and regulatory role, the administrative costs could be kept to a minimum.
The growth in business activity, in jobs created and in tax revenue generated would almost certainly more than meet any costs sustained. I can think of nothing more likely to change the climate in the small business sector for the better than to create a loan guarantee scheme. If we could open up the avenues of opportunity and free small businessmen from the burden of pledging their homes and savings, we would make the biggest single contribution to our country's economic recovery. I urge my right hon. Friends to consider this at the earliest possible moment.
There is no aspect of life in any business that is more resented than the provision of information and of taxes to the State at the expense and in the time of the taxpayer. This is a particularly heavy burden on small businesses where resources are limited. But there is an additional burden on them that I believe requires immediate relief.
Under the Finance Acts of 1972 and 1976, the Customs and Excise officers responsible for collecting value added tax and the officers of the Inland Revenue were granted sweeping powers to enter

1119
premises, seize documents and require information. Although these powers are not identical, I believe that there is an irresistible case for regulating these powers by formulating a code of practice for the officers of the two services that can be enforced in the courts.
It is outrageous for any citizen to be subjected to dawn swoops, to the search of his personal papers and those of his family, right down to school reports and cross-country results, and to questioning without knowing what information is being sought or why. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) raised this whole question in an Adjournment debate on 21 December 1979.
There is no defence for tax evasion, but there is no justification for the abuses committed by the Customs and Excise under the shadow of statutory authority. I suggest that before any entry is made or papers seized the officers of the two services should establish a prima facie case in writing before a High Court judge for supposing that an offence has occurred. They should identify the people whose activities they wish to investigate.
If a warrant is granted by a High Court judge it should specify the premises they may enter, the papers they may require and the times during the day—say, 9 am to 5 pm—during which they may call. A copy of the warrant should be handed to the person whose premises are to be entered for search when entry is undertaken. Copies of any papers removed must be supplied to their owner within seven to 14 days. No one should be questioned without knowing what he or she is being questioned about and without the opportunity of having his or her solicitor present. If members of the owner's family are to be questioned, they should be over 18 years of age and have an interest as an employee or a director of that business. The questioning of staff should take place only in the presence of a representative of the proprietor.
A code of practice based on the principles that the suspected offence be defined, that the grounds and terms of entry and seizure be known to all parties, that the conduct of the inquiry is strictly confined to the alleged offence, and that the questioning of relatives and employed employees is controlled, would
1120
eliminate the indefensible behaviour that has occurred in too many cases.
In the short time available to me I have tried to spell out some of the problems of small businesses. There are many more. I profoundly believe that if some consideration could be given to helping with these problems the country would reap much reward. I look forward with interest to my hon. Friend's response.
12.21 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) on having raised the vital subject of small businesses and their effect on jobs and the long-term wealth-creating capacity of this country. I am delighted to see that he is being supported by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), whose considerable interest in and concern about this matter are well known to the House.
My hon. Friend has raised this matter at an appropriate time—I do not mean at this hour of the morning, but after nine months' gestation of this Government's policies, We are now able to see a little modest progress along the road down which my hon. Friend wishes us to move.
My hon. Friend asks for confirmation that the Government recognise the benefits of small businesses for this country's economy. I do so with enthusiasm. These benefits are often taken for granted by the public. The small firm provides a degree of service, choice and diversity for the consumer which is of enormous benefit, and we should not take that for granted.
Of far greater importance to the national economy is the fact that small firms are the seed corn from which larger firms of the future will come. When one looks at the national economy, one sees that businesses have a life cycle. Like human beings, they get old, tired, out of date and die. Their places are taken by the young, the thrusting and the vigorous with new ideas, new products, new technology and new ways. We are in a phase of contraction in which many of our older industries must concede the take off of younger, newer businesses. In a decade's time some firms will die, and others will take off. Some small businesses will

1121
become middle-sized family businesses, and even the giants of the future.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that there are more small businesses on the Continent. Germany is considered to be the median of Europe. If that country has 40 per cent. more small firms than we have, it must follow that the European average is 40 per cent. more. There is no excuse for our being so far behind. There is no excuse for it, particularly in the light of the massive increases in imports into this country, not from the low-cost countries of the Far East but from Europe. There is no reason why British manufacturers should not identify products coming here and set up in business to satisfy that market.
My hon. Friend referred to the MIT study in America by Professor Birch, which showed that on balance new jobs were created in businesses with fewer than 20 employees. He is right. It is an interesting and slightly disturbing fact that that study also reveals that the largest number of the new jobs were created not in manufacturing industries but in service industries. We must recognise in future a greater emphasis on the job-creating role of service industries.
It is interesting that the study in America has been in some measure confirmed by the study undertaken in Cleveland in the United Kingdom. The study indicated that on balance the larger companies were losing jobs and that the smaller businesses were gaining them.
My hon. Friend asked why there were a relatively small number of new businesses in Britain compared with the Continent. He sketched a series of changes that he wished to see. Our analysis is that there are so few new businesses in this country because Parliament, under Governments of both main parties, has piled on more and more burdens for small businesses to carry. More and more hurdles have been placed in the way of those who start a business. Successive Labour Governments have increased taxation. The hurdles have become higher and the incentive to jump them has become less and less. As a consequence—I believe that people act logically in these matters—it has been reasonable for the logical person not to start a business.
1122
My hon. Friend divided his appeal to the Government to deal with the problems into three areas—taxation, burdens and cash within the business. I shall endeavour to deal with as many of the matters that he raised as possible in the time available.
Tribute has been paid on previous occasions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the changes that he made in his Budget in 1979. The factor that has not sufficiently been recognised is that he not merely reduced the top rate of tax from 83 per cent. to 60 per cent., but more than doubled—from 17 per cent. to 40 per cent. —take-home pay for the man who really succeeds. That is a shining star for the man who seeks to start a business to aim for. He knows that if he really succeeds it will be worth while.
My hon. Friend referred to capital transfer tax and capital gains tax. I join him in believing that we are dealing with the most human of motivations, namely, that a man builds up a business with a view to passing it on to the next generation of his family.
There is in many of us—this may not apply to all—what I describe as a dynastic streak. That is what my wife calls it. It is a desire to ensure that one's family will continue with the business and that what one has spent so much time building up will continue. That desire can be destroyed by capital transfer tax and capital gains tax.
Labour Members are not present this morning because small businesses do not interest them that much. If they were here they would speak about the problem of the young man who is brought up with a silver spoon in his mouth. I do not think that it is particularly good for people to be brought up soft and easy. The trouble is that Labour Members seek to throw the baby out with the bath water. They destroy the motivation for the man in his forties, fifties and sixties to continue to build up his business and create Britain's wealth as he does so.
My hon. Friend asked for the VAT exemption to be lifted from the present £10,000 to £50,000. I have vivid recollections of doing a VAT return in my own business before I came to my present post. My hon. Friend drew attention to

1123
the benefits of such a change in reducing the burden on the business man. How ever, unfortunately, the pass was sold by the Labour government, who entered into an agreement with the Common Market Commission that the exemption would be no more than the original £5,000 indexed for inflation. That took us to £10,000 two years ago, and I suppose that it would be about £12,000 this year. The only way in which we can get out of that is to ask the other members of the Common Market to agree to what my hon. Friend wishes. The prospect of obtaining their agreement is negligible because we have the highest exemption rate in Europe. The arrangement that was entered into is a legacy that we cannot escape from.
My hon. Friend made the interesting suggestion that we should apply the French system, under which £600 of one's gross income is allowed for tax if it is invested. My hon. Friend suggested a figure of £1,000 for the United Kingdom. But there are some practical difficulties. The law in France applies only if one invests the money on the stock exchange in a quoted company. My hon. Friend suggests that that should be done in the private business, and not through the stock exchange. The difficulty is that the proprietor of a business, because he would be allowed to invest in his own business, could draw out £17,000 of his salary, pay no tax on it, and put it back into the business. He could go on doing that. Applying such a provision not to quoted companies, as in France, but to close family businesses, would open up a massive area of evasion. However, if my hon. Friend can suggest a way in which that can be circumvented, I shall be very glad to hear from him.
My hon. Friend has raised many points with regard to burdens. I could talk for a long time about the changes that we have made affecting VAT and industrial development certificates, the sweeping away of ODPs, the ending of price and wage controls. changes in development land tax, the ability of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas to sell its freeholds, and the way in which the Department is selling the freeholds of its factories. A massive number of burdens have been lightened and a massive number of hurdles have been
1124
pulled down.
Time is rushing on, and I do not want to fail to talk about the important points that my hon. Friend made about the loan guarantee scheme, which is one of a number of matters that we are examining in connection with the requirement of a business to have cash within it for its development.
My hon. Friend said that the banks had the money. At present they have not. They are caught in what is known as the corset, the restriction on their lending, so that at this time even if one were to agree that a loan guaratneee scheme was the right solution it would not be appropriate to tell the banks "While you cannot find enough money to lend to you rexisting customers, we want you to lend to others". I think that my hon. Friend would agree that a matter of timing would be involved.
There is another problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will take it away and come back to me with a solution. There is nothing to be gained if the banks simply say "We would have lent to this person, though we would not have been very keen, and it is on the margin but now that the Government will take the risk for us we shall put it in the loan guarantee scheme", because one would then have substitution rather than additional lending. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I would agree that our purpose, if one were to move along that road, would be to ensure that there was additional lending rather than substitution of lending which the banks would have done of their own volition.
It would not be true to say that a loan guarantee scheme is something about which we are about to make a pronouncement. It is one of a number of alternative ways of assisting the financing of small businesses that we are examining.
My hon. Friend drew attention to an important initiative that we have recently taken with a trial scheme, in which we find a firm that needs investment and bridge the gap between one of the big pension funds and the small business by using our counselling service to assess and monitor whether it is worth while. That means not that we have given an artificial advantage to the small business, but that we have removed the artificial disadvantage, in that it is as expensive for a big

1125
institution to assess a £5,000 or £10,000 investment as it is—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and
1126
the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Wider Opportunities for Women
  Wider Opportunities for Women
  Manpower Services Commission (Sponsored Courses)
  Manpower Services Commission (Sponsored Courses)
  Annual Census of Employment
  Annual Census of Employment
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
  Jobcentre (Macclesfield)
  Jobcentre (Macclesfield)
  Small Undertakings (Employees)
  Small Undertakings (Employees)
  Maternity Benefit
  Maternity Benefit
  Employment Transfer and Job Search Schemes
  Employment Transfer and Job Search Schemes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Special Patrol Group
  Special Patrol Group
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Police Forces (Sex Equality)
  Police Forces (Sex Equality)
  Defence College, Easingwold
  Defence College, Easingwold
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Ethiopian Refugees
  Ethiopian Refugees
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Parliamentary Boundary Commissions
  Private Mail (Censorship)
  Private Mail (Censorship)
  Coroners' Inquests (Press Attendance)
  Coroners' Inquests (Press Attendance)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING COMMITTEES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (STANDING COMMITTEES)
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Educational Broadcasts
  Educational Broadcasts
  Prisoners (Outside Visits)
  Prisoners (Outside Visits)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Employment Programmes
  Employment Programmes
  Health Boards (Support Financing)
  Health Boards (Support Financing)
  DIVORCE RATE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  DIVORCE RATE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  LEGAL PROFESSION (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY (PENSIONS)
  MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY (PENSIONS)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Stabex Scheme
  Stabex Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals and Transport
  School Meals and Transport
  School Uniform and Maintenance Allowances
  School Uniform and Maintenance Allowances
  Metropolitan Districts (Education Expenditure)
  Metropolitan Districts (Education Expenditure)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  BROADCASTING
  BROADCASTING
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY SERVICES
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY SERVICES
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (MEDIA COVERAGE)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (MEDIA COVERAGE)
WALES
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Health Service Organisation
  Health Service Organisation
  Domestic and Industrial Refuse (Collection)
  Domestic and Industrial Refuse (Collection)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
INDUSTRY
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Vosper Limited
  Vosper Limited
  Assisted Areas
  Assisted Areas
  Fairey Holdings Limited
  Fairey Holdings Limited
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Computer Industry
  Computer Industry
  Redpath Dorman Long
  Redpath Dorman Long
  Concorde
  Concorde
ENERGY
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  European Community (Energy Conservation)
  European Community (Energy Conservation)
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Reactor Designs
  Reactor Designs
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Gas Reserves (Continental Shelf)
  Gas Reserves (Continental Shelf)
  Coal (Lost Production)
  Coal (Lost Production)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Resources
  North Sea Resources
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Gas Supply (Members' Correspondence)
  Gas Supply (Members' Correspondence)
  Gas and Electricity (Advertising)
  Gas and Electricity (Advertising)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Smokeless Fuels (Ancid Process)
  Smokeless Fuels (Ancid Process)
  Gas
  Gas
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Generic Prescribing
  Generic Prescribing
  Liable Relatives
  Liable Relatives
  Mental Handicap (Report)
  Mental Handicap (Report)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Heart Surgery (Liverpool)
  Heart Surgery (Liverpool)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefits)
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Family Benefits
  Family Benefits
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Local Authorities (Accommodation Charges)
  Local Authorities (Accommodation Charges)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Special Needs Payment (Nuclear Shelters)
  Special Needs Payment (Nuclear Shelters)
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Tehran (Commission of Inquiry)
  Tehran (Commission of Inquiry)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Heat Metering
  Heat Metering
  National Trust (Exhibition)
  National Trust (Exhibition)
  Evicted Tenants (Rent Rebate)
  Evicted Tenants (Rent Rebate)
  Rent Allowances
  Rent Allowances
  Council House Tenants (Rent Rebates and Supplementary Benefits)
  Council House Tenants (Rent Rebates and Supplementary Benefits)
  Deep Tube Shelters
  Deep Tube Shelters
  Coventry Churches Housing Association
  Coventry Churches Housing Association
  Rent Rebate—Supplementary Benefit (Transfer)
  Rent Rebate—Supplementary Benefit (Transfer)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Housing Bill
  Housing Bill
  Vauxhall Bridge Effra Site
  Vauxhall Bridge Effra Site
  Office Development
  Office Development
  Regulated Tenancies
  Regulated Tenancies
  Construction Industry (Redundancies)
  Construction Industry (Redundancies)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  "Agriculture and the Countryside" (Strutt Report)
  "Agriculture and the Countryside" (Strutt Report)
  Fishery Protection Service
  Fishery Protection Service
  Hull Fishing Vessel Owners' Company
  Hull Fishing Vessel Owners' Company
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Cod and Haddock
  Cod and Haddock
  Fish Landing Charges
  Fish Landing Charges
  Fish Imports
  Fish Imports
  Albert Fish Dock, Hull
  Albert Fish Dock, Hull
  Caramel
  Caramel
  Trawlers (Hull)
  Trawlers (Hull)
  Fish Meal Production
  Fish Meal Production
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Staff Side (Meeting)
  Staff Side (Meeting)
  Computers
  Computers
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  International Organisations (United Kingdom Contribution)
  International Organisations (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Capital Taxes Office
  Capital Taxes Office
  Tax Relief (Energy Saving)
  Tax Relief (Energy Saving)
  Development Land Tax Office
  Development Land Tax Office
  Tax Expenditure
  Tax Expenditure
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Pensions
  Pensions
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Widows (Short-term Allowance)
  Widows (Short-term Allowance)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Taxation Revenue
  Taxation Revenue
  Law Society (Value Added Tax)
  Law Society (Value Added Tax)
TRANSPORT
  Jubilee Line
  Jubilee Line
  Harrowden, Eastcotts and Cambridge Roads, Bedford
  Harrowden, Eastcotts and Cambridge Roads, Bedford
  Derailment (Bushey)
  Derailment (Bushey)
  Traffic Signs
  Traffic Signs
  M25 (Catering)
  M25 (Catering)
  Vehicle Excise Licence
  Vehicle Excise Licence
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Trunk Road Construction
  Trunk Road Construction
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telex Facilities
  Telex Facilities
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Pensions
  Members' Pensions
  Refreshment Department (Shirts)
  Refreshment Department (Shirts)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Accommodation
  Accommodation
  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX (WORKS OF ART)
  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX (WORKS OF ART)
  Clock Tower
  Clock Tower
TRADE
  Counterfeit Automotive Parts
  Counterfeit Automotive Parts
  "Pool Fisher"
  "Pool Fisher"
  Lost Trawlers
  Lost Trawlers
  Fishing Vessels (Reporting-in)
  Fishing Vessels (Reporting-in)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety Requirements)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety Requirements)
  Eurocontrol
  Eurocontrol
  Airport Charges
  Airport Charges
  Aviation Security Fund
  Aviation Security Fund
  Dan-Air Flight DA 064 (Pilot Record)
  Dan-Air Flight DA 064 (Pilot Record)
  Caramel
  Caramel
  Yarn Imports
  Yarn Imports
  Concorde
  Concorde
DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Recruitment and Resignations)
  Armed Forces (Recruitment and Resignations)
  Frigates
  Frigates
  British Forces East of Suez
  British Forces East of Suez
  Offshore Patrol Vessel
  Offshore Patrol Vessel
  Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Service Personnel (Pensions)
  Dan-Air Flight DA064 (Near Miss)
  Dan-Air Flight DA064 (Near Miss)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Primary School, Lack, Co. Fermanagh
  Primary School, Lack, Co. Fermanagh
  Health and Education Services
  Health and Education Services
  Unemployment (Dungannon and Omagh)
  Unemployment (Dungannon and Omagh)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Terrorist Offences (Legal Aid Costs)
  Terrorist Offences (Legal Aid Costs)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Child Prostitution
  Child Prostitution
  Geriatric Provision (Belfast)
  Geriatric Provision (Belfast)

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

THE BORDERS DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL
Earl HAIG: 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 the Secretary of State for Scotland was aware of the opposition from the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland to the siting of the proposed hospital at Huntlyburn before approving the scheme; and whether, in view of the Commission's recommendation in its recent report to change the site to Tweedbank, that decision is not now questionable.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the decision to site the Borders District General Hospital at Huntlyburn was taken in 1969 when the site was acquired. I am not aware that there was any opposition from the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland at that stage. The decision was endorsed at the end of 1977 by the Borders Regional Council, as planning authority, after full consultation with all interested parties and the consideration of representations. Their representations included a suggestion by the Commission that the site be changed to Tweedbank. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that Huntlyburn is the best location for the hospital, and planning on this basis is at an advanced stage.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but, as it is vital to make sure that the hospital is built in the right place, would he allow me, through him, to urge the Secretary of State to visit the two alternative sites, particularly as the previous Secretary of State decided against
538
holding a public inquiry, and as the plans, questioned by the Royal Fine Art Commission, objected to by the Georgian Society and contravening principles laid down by the Countryside Commission, have lately added an extra floor to the building?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall bring to my right honourable friend's attention my noble friend's request that he should himself pay a visit. Perhaps I may say with regard to the alternative site at Tweedbank that there is insufficient land available there for a major hospital project. In any event it is the policy of the Borders Regional Council to develop Tweedbank for housing and industry as a means of retaining population in the central Borders and encouraging population growth in the longer term. The fact that the site which has been chosen is in an area designated as of great landscape value does not, of course, preclude development. Great care has been taken over the positioning and the design of buildings within the site.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how far the building of this hospital has progressed during the interval of 11 years?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as I understand it, the scheme is not yet under way in the physical sense.
Lord CAMBPELL of CROY: My Lords, while not wishing that the hospital should be in any way delayed, can my noble friend none the less arrange for the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission to be considered before final decisions are taken, to ensure that the extra storey which has been proposed will not cause the building to be ugly and different from the one originally intended?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The views of the Commission have already been considered by the local authorities concerned.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the building of this hospital is likely to be completed, and what is to happen to the intended patients in the meantime?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am not armed with that information. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

DOCKYARDS: GIRL APPRENTICES
2.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 state how many girl apprentices have been trained in H.M. Dockyards since the inception of the scheme for that purpose.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, since the inception of the scheme in 1969 a total of 50 girls have completed training as apprentices in the Royal Dockyards and a further 50 girls are under training at present.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will ensure that careers officers know about this scheme? In view of the Monty Finniston Report, which dealt with the need for more engineers, should not a career in engineering be suggested to girls? I find the greatest opposition among parents because they do not realise what a good career for girls it is.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The dockyards do run recruitment campagins in close co-operation with the local schools and with the youth employment services. All are fully aware that girls are accepted for training on an equal footing with men.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the scheme has been a success, in view of the fact that one girl from Uganda, a refugee, was top of all the girls and the boys at Chatham? Surely this shows that it is a worthwhile career for girls.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

ARMS SALES AND HUMAN RIGHTS
2.41 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been given to the General Synod of the Church of England, which has proposed that information should be made public about arms sales, in order to ensure that arms are not sold to regimes where there are "proven abuses against human rights, especially torture".
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, a letter sent today to the General Synod refers to the Government's view that there are substantial benefits to be derived from defence sales, but that this does not mean that the Government consider that the United Kingdom should export arms indiscriminately. We follow a policy of responsible restraint and examine each case on its merits.
The reply goes on to refer to the major reservations which customers and suppliers share about the disclosure of information, in view of the important political, commercial and security considerations involved. Experience with the proposals tabled in the UN for a register of arms confirms these difficulties. The record of the recipient Government on human rights is one of the factors taken into account in reaching a decision.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, should not the people of this country know where arms are sent on their behalf? As the most crucial issue which affects both them and their children is war and peace, I should like to ask whether arms are being sent to some of our allies who have been found guilty by the United Nations of denying human rights and even of torture? Does that not destroy our integrity when we rightly condemn the Soviet Union for its treatment of dissidents?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have already said that the way in which a potential client

541
Government conduct their affairs is one of the issues that we take into account. We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say why it is that, if it is the customers who object to the information being released, we follow a different rule in these matters from that of the United States? Will the noble Lord say what examples there are of arms sales being prevented, other than the very minor case of the armoured cars which we did not in the end sell to El Salvador? In particular, why are the Government continuing to sell arms to Argentina, a State which has been condemned by the State Department in the United States and in respect of which there has recently been a report by the Organisation of American States confirming that torture has been used universally as an instrument of policy in that country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into individual cases. There has recently been a case where arms sales to Argentina have not been sanctioned. As regards the general point about disclosure of arms sales, the position is that it is extremely difficult to do a commercial deal if the customer is anxious that It should not be disclosed.
The Lord Bishop of DERBY: My Lords, I should like to press the point which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised regarding the comparison with the United States of America. The United States Congress is given much more information about arms sales than British Governments ever give to Parliament. Would the Minister not accept that there is a good case for greater openness in this country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can only say that one has to try to hold a balance between one's desire to conclude the deal and the desire to justify one's moral conscience. On the whole, at present, we do our best to vet most carefully any deals which are proposed, while at the same time doing what we believe is in the commercial and industrial interests of this country as a whole.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why on earth we allowed arms to be supplied to Amin from this country? For that is the situation according to the reports which have appeared in the American Press which conducted an investigation into the supply of arms to that country. Why have we supplied the PLO whose men are being trained in the USSR—about whom everyone here is complaining—so that they can be utilised against not only Israel but our country and every other civilised country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, first, I was not aware that we had supplied arms to the PLO. As regards the general point that the noble Lord has made, I should point out that in many cases, even if we do not supply arms, other people will do so. We must use our judgment as to what is the balance of advantage for this country. I believe that we do so reasonably well. I may add that we try not to supply arms to people who we think, potentially, will use them against us.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question raised by my my noble friend Lord Brockway and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, about the difference in the information given to Congress and here?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we cannot be responsible for another nation's policy. Our policy is to pursue the arms sales which we believe to be in the interests of this country, and we believe that those interests would be damaged if we had to disclose every sale in great detail.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say upon which principle the Government stand? He has put forward two propositions. The first is that the Government, in selling arms, take into account that the receiving country may or may not be engaged in violations of human rights. The second proposition is that we must remember that, if we do not sell arms, somebody else will do so. Therefore, presumably if the second principle operates, the first goes out of the window?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that that is necessarily true at all. We would not sell arms to what we would regard as repressive régimes—that is quite clear policy. I do not say that we always get it right and régimes change, as indeed, the nature of the Amin régime changed. However, we must bear in mind that, in many cases, arms sales open a door to commercial deals and ultimately exercise political influence which is beneficial to this country.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say what principle was operating when they supplied money to Savak?
The Lord Bishop of GUILDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the sale of arms by one nation to another implies that they share certain assumptions about peace-making and the ordering of the international community, and that, therefore, such sales raise important moral and ethical issues as well as commercial and political issues and issues of security? Will he not agree that these issues ought to be the subject of widespread public debate because they concern the standing of our particular country in the world? Furthermore, will the Minister agree that such debate can be conducted only if there is widespread information about the kind of arms that are being sold and to what extent?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that I can go all the way with the right reverend Prelate. We have diplomatic relations with countries, but that does not necessarily imply that we approve of their regimes. On arms, our attitude is that, unless there is a pressing reason and there is clear evidence of a repressive regime, we arc inclined to pursue the sale of arms to them. Incidentally, we believe that there is no reason to assume that another country does not have the right to buy arms to protect itself, which is a point which is made in this pamphlet, which gives rise to the original Question.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that an honourable friend reputedly put down a Question on the Order Paper in another place concerning the sale of arms by this country to
544
Ethiopia, a regime of psychopathic violence against its own people? Does the noble Lord not consider that if people are debarred from obtaining even the slightest bit of information about the destination of arms sales, there will be widespread suspicion by the public that the criteria, which the noble Lord mentions, are not being properly observed and that we are selling arms to régimes which inflict torture and violence on their citizens?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I cannot answer for what happens in another place. I believe that there is no evidence that we sell arms to repressive régimes.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that there is a strange logic in assuming that young athletes who go to a country in order to compete in games alone, give support to the régime, while selling guns to another country does not?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think, if I may say so, that the question of what athletes do or do not do has a great deal to do with the selling of arms.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that the party opposite sold guns and tanks to the Shah's régime, which was supported by Savak, because it was concerned with jobs for our own people here? Are they now suggesting that the present Government should adopt a different standard?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is difficult for me to answer for the party opposite. Indeed, I doubt whether they would agree with me if I answered for them. The noble Earl is perfectly right that the proposed arms sales to Iran would have offered a great deal of employment in this country, most particularly in the Royal Ordnance factories which are now in serious difficulties as a result of the default on those contracts.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister deny that arms are being sold to Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina and Ethiopia, all of which are imprisoning political opponents without trial?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that I could accept either of those propositions. I do not accept that those are all repressive regimes and I am not at all sure that we arc, in fact, selling arms to all of them.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has been trying to ask a question for some time, but we have had about nine minutes on this Question. Perhaps I might suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, and then we might move on.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, obtained a copy of the regulations which apply in the United States of America in respect of the supply of arms, and will he read them to see how different they arc from ours? Does he realise that, in addition to all the questions that have been asked, my question was not only about a régime? My question was as to why we are supplying arms to terrorists. The PLO are terrorists and they are being trained in Russia. We keep on talking about civil defence and other associated matters, but at the same time we are allowing the arming of people, who ultimately, if a crisis does arise, will be using those arms against us. Why have we supplied arms to terrorists?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, as the noble Lord requests me to do, I shall certainly study the American regulations. I do not think that I could necessarily agree with the noble Lord about the status of the PLO and I am perfectly certain that we would not involve ourselves in supplying arms to terrorists of any complexion.

THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY: DENATIONALISATION
2.53 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 steps are being taken to denationalise the shipbuilding industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry has recently confirmed, the Government remain committed to the principle of denationalisation in the shipbuilding industry. When the time is right we intend to come forward with appropriate measures.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of the recent decline of a large order by nationalised shipbuilding firms, may I ask whether there is some way of hastening the proceedings of denationalisation, because a private firm might have snapped up that order?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is referring to the special ships for car transportation; it was reported in the Press that British Shipbuilders had referred the order to the Japanese. That is not quite either the whole story or a fair story. As I understand it from British Shipbuilders, this was one of approximately 1,500 inquiries that they receive every year. It was a rather tentative inquiry at that stage, as are so many such inquiries. British Shipbuilders respond positively to about 850 such inquiries. I think that the Answer to my noble friend's original Question is not to any major extent influenced by her supplementary question. The original Question relates to the stage in the restructuring programme which we announced on 23rd July and the progress made in that restructuring programme in order to reach a position where "privatisation "of the mainline activities becomes practical.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, if indeed the Government are to go ahead at some stage with this suggestion, will the noble Viscount confirm that they will not simply try to denationalise those sectors which are making profits, but will, in fact, look at the whole industry and not leave the public to look after the sectors which are not making profits?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any assurance about the idea of "privatising "as a whole rather than in parts. Indeed, we have encouraged British Shipbuilders to

547
receive any serious inquiries in relation to any parts of their activity which they do not feel are vital to their mainstream activities. I know that they are in discussion on a number of inquiries in relation to fairly peripheral, but in some cases important, activities.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House the latest report on the associated matter of compensation, particularly where the three principal companies in naval shipbuilding are concerned?—as they were flourishing concerns at the time of nationalisation. At least three years have passed and as yet nothing appears to have happened.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that compensation is a separate question from the Question on the Order Paper. However, the position on compensation is that since a declaration as long ago as 1975 was made on the principles of compensation that went into the 1977 Act, we have a situation where some cases for compensation have been settled in accordance with that Act, others have not, and where share dealings have continued for some five years since the original declaration on a basis of the provisions of the Act. So there are very real complexities regarding going back in any way on the 1977 Act.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when the Government adopt the principle of denationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, can the noble Viscount say in what circumstances they will adopt it—when it is making a profit or when it is making a loss?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord in full, except to say that in the middle of the immense restructuring programme which we announced in July, which has been agreed with both sides of the industry, which involves a reduction from 28,000 people to a little under 20,000 people (that is going to be a slightly higher reduction, by agreement with the trade unions, in relation to the latest wage settlement) with order books in 1979 still running at only a little over half the target agreed between British Shipbuilders and the last Administration and endorsed by
548
us, is certainly not the moment to move at the present time.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, could the noble Lord not have been a little more explicit in his answer to my noble friend Lord Lee? Is it not the case that if the Government were to suggest selling those parts of publicly-owned industries which did not show a profit, they simply would not be able to sell them for that very reason? Private investors would not be interested in purchasing them. Therefore that leaves only the profitable parts of public ownership, and it is the intention of the Government to sell off the profitable parts of publicly-owned industry.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not necessarily or fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. It is more than possible, when the restructuring programme is complete, with a loss-making activity which nevertheless has the possibility of being turned by a private enterprise interest with knowledge of that particular activity, that it might well make inquiries and take it over before profit is made.

DINNERS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinners will be available this evening at the usual time. It is proposed that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately an hour in order to enable those of your Lordships who are particularly tied up in the Education Bill to take advantage of this facility. The Report stage of the National Heritage Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
3.4 p.m.
MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Change of nomenclature]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Clause 1, Amendment No. 1. I have to point out that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) For the purpose of removing any distinction between bodies constituted for primary schools and those constituted for secondary schools under subsection 1 of section 17 of the Education Act 1944 and for the purpose of ensuring all such bodies shall be known as bodies of governors, the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified, being amendments consequential on the provisions of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My purpose in moving this amendment is to give a further boost to our excellent primary schools, putting them on a par with secondary schools by sending their articles of government also to the Secretary of State for approval. This Bill aims to give primary schools an increased status by changing the nomenclature, "managers "to "governors "and "rules of management "to "articles of government". But the changes proposed will be purely cosmetic and not of substance unless we put primary schools completely on the same footing as secondary.
I see no reason to differentiate between these equally important sectors of education. As there is nothing in this Bill about the powers of government, it would seem right that the articles of government which are the nearest to a description of the powers and duties of government that any authority has should have the blessing of the department and the Minister so that there is some overall and general and coherent view across the country. A central eye can keep a watch on an authority that may not carry out the expectations that this Bill raises, not to mention the many expectations raised by the present Secretary of State
550
and the present Leader of the House of Commons when in opposition.
Speaking on the Taylor Report, Mr. St. John-Stevas, when Opposition spokesman for education, said:
" We therefore commend those sections of the report "—
that is the Taylor Report—
" which advocate greater powers for school governors. Parents, for example, would be much more likely to come forward as governors if they know they will have an effective say in the school's budget and curriculum".
There is nothing in this Bill at all to suggest how this effective say will come about.
Dr. Rhodes Boyston, when answering the debate on this amendment when moved at Committee stage in another place, said that the Secretary of State could only veto the articles, or "bounce them ", as he put it. He said:
" To transfer the power to the Secretary of State would be totally against the philosophy we are forming of devolving power to the local authorities".
He has not suggested that the articles of government of secondary schools should no longer be vetted, although he hinted that he might be willing to look at such an amendment if it were put down. I do not believe that it was, and I would prefer for those of primary schools to be vetted too.
So far as the philosophy goes of devolving power, we shall see if that philosophy is the guiding principle as we go through the Bill. It seems to me to come and go a bit. If governors are to feel that they are doing a worthwhile, useful and interesting job they must have some powers, and powers that they recognise as powers, because the sort of people you want will not give up their time to join a talking shop. They do not just want to pass splendid resolutions which might as well go straight into the wastepaper basket for all the attention that is paid to them, and they do not want to be a rubber stamp for the head or for the local authority.
Articles of government can confer powers and duties, and I have here the rules of management—that is, the articles of government to be. They spell out pretty clearly the duties of managers about the inspection and repair of school premises; the use to which the premises are put out of school hours and in the holidays; about the appointment and dismissal of the head; the appointment and dismissal

551
of assistant teachers; the appointment of non-teaching staff; a section on organisation and curriculum which says, if a hit vaguely, where the responsibilities of the authority, the managers, and the head lie.
I should now like to quote a bit from the part on organisation and curriculum. This is the first section:
" The authority shall determine the educational character of the school and its place in the educational system of the county, and subject to the provisions of these rules and to the directions of the authority the managers shall have the general direction of the conduct of the school".
There is then a section on the head's role. Then there is the following on the curriculum:
" All proposals and reports affecting the conduct and curriculum of a school shall he submitted to the managers. The chief education officer shall be furnished with a copy of any written report of major significance to the conduct of curricula at least seven days before they are considered by the managers".
It is not exactly explicit, but there is some guidance. The DES, I believe, has model articles so I do not think that much extra work would be involved either at the LEA level or at the department if this amendment is accepted.
I was interested to discover that during the Committee stage of the Labour Bill of 1978 Miss Margaret Jackson, the Minister then in. charge, at first opposed this amendment, but she had second thoughts.
She said:
" However, since the Bill was drafted one or two articles of primary schools have been brought to my attention which would certainly not meet with the approval of any member of the committee in some of the stipulations. Therefore, if my honourable friend will withdraw his amendment, or even if he does not, 1 give my assurance that we will look at this matter carefully to see whether it will be possible—I think it will be possible—to include primary schools in the provision of the Bill".
I hope the Minister in charge here today will be as obliging. Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon this one, and I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said on this important matter. She rightly said that this amendment—and, indeed, a sequence of amendments has been tabled so this subject will occur from time to time throughout
552
our discussions on the Bill—is about the relationship between central and local government in education; this of course arises over a number of issues, but, as those of us who are involved in education know, education is a national system locally administered, and the relationship between the two parts of it involves a number of matters of principle, and of course involves discussion of a number of important points which will arise from time to time.
It is true that our general policy is that controls over local authorities should be reduced, and to that end as we come to debate certain clauses, particularly Clause 12, it will be seen that we are going a considerable way to meet some of the requests of local authorities in this regard. So far as these particular matters are concerned, local education authorities have been responsible for the rules of management of primary schools since 1944 and we do not believe there is an overwhelming reason why they should now be subject to some additional control as in the case of secondary schools, because they are now to have what will be called "articles of government "rather than "rules of management ", as before.
The noble Baroness also raised in speaking to these two amendments the much broader issue of the powers of governing bodies, and it will he clear from the Bill that we have not included anything on that subject at all. It is a matter on which it is very difficult to get a clear consensus as to what the powers of governing bodies should be, and we as a Government share the view of the previous Government that in the absence of this consensus, the present arrangements give plenty of scope to those who wish to exercise influence to do so, and we do not wish to make any changes at this particular time.
We of course believe in the importance of primary schools. The first years of a child's school life are absolutely crucial, and we recognise this by saying now in the Bill that we are proposing governing bodies for primary schools in recognition of the importance we attach to them. I hope therefore that with this explanation—that there is nothing against primary schools and indeed that our wish in this matter is to keep what we feel is the right relationship between central and local

553
government—the noble Baroness will feel that the amendment, which I am in any event unable to accept, is unnecessary.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: There is more behind the history of this proposal than the relationship between central and local government. The status of primary schools historically is that of schools for the working classes. The status of secondary schools is that of schools to which the middle class and professional people sent their children, and the differentiations that have been maintained in the forms of government reflect that. Times have changed and now a number of middle class and professional people send their children to primary schools. Nevertheless, the distinction historically was a distinction of class rather than a distinction of relationship between central and local authorities. It ran all through our education system; primary schools had teachers while secondary schools had schoolmistresses and schoolmasters. The whole of the educational system is tainted with this particular language and with these changes in organisation. I very much hope that the Committee will recommend that these distinctions are irrelevant to the climate of today and should be removed.
Lord AVEBURY: The Minister said there was nothing in the Bill about the powers of governing bodies, a point that was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Would it not be desirable for the Committee to direct its attention to this subject while we have the opportunity in debating this amendment? We seldom look at the powers of the governing bodies and if we let this opportunity pass during the proceedings on this Bill there may not be another chance of returning to it for many years.
I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness did not say a little more about the existing powers of the governing bodies of primary schools so that we could have seen whether there were any matters of relevance in considering the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said their powers on curricula were quite extensive; she said that all proposals on curricula had to be submitted to the managers and I think she said these were subsequently looked at by the chief education officer. However, in the
554
example she quoted she did not say whether the chief education officer had any veto over decisions that might be made by the managers.
This is not a purely academic matter because there was an occasion not long ago—noble Lords will doubtless remember it—when the managers of a particular primary school, I think in the ILEA area, departed very radically from the sort of curriculum we have come to expect from primary schools and, after a considerable period of disruption, the school had to be closed for a certain period and all the teachers were dismissed. I cannot remember exactly how it finished up, but that all had to do with the curriculum, and I therefore wonder whether we should pay a little more attention to this issue than we are apparently doing so far.
If the powers of the governing bodies are as extensive as they appear to have been in that instance, it would not make much difference whether the articles were approved by the local education authority or the Secretary of State. It would come to the same thing—that there might be conflict between the wishes of the parents who send their children to that particular school and the way it was conducted, which they might think was contrary to the interests of the children's education. So, apart from any removal of distinction, which I agree with the noble Baroness is an object of which we should approve, there is also the rather more fundamental question underlying the amendment which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the Minister will explore before we leave the clause.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: With respect to the Minister, I do not think she has so far made a convincing case against the amendment. If we look first at the immediate issue, it can be defined in this way: as things now stand, the Secretary of State has to approve the articles of government for secondary schools but will not have to approve the articles of government, as they will now be called, for primary schools. Why is that distinction being made? The Minister pointed out that throughout the Bill there runs the question: how much freedom should he given to local authorities and what matters should come

555
under the purview of the Secretary of State? I agree that one can argue this way and that as regards that point on every issue of education that arises, but why should there be a distinction here? The articles of government for secondary schools are apparently considered to be of such importance that the Secretary of State should approve them; but the articles of government for primary schools are not. One can defend that position only if one believes that the articles of government for primary schools are of less importance than the articles of government for secondary schools.
Surely we are not going to assent to that proposition, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger powerfully argued. Indeed, the difference in nomenclature to which she referred used to go right back to the point that the schools for young children were not called primary schools at all; they were called elementary schools where you merely picked up the elements of knowledge absolutely essential to be a citizen in a modern country, and did not go on to real education unless you were able to get to a secondary school.
Surely the drive in this Bill is supposed to be to increase the dignity of the primary schools. Why, for goodness' sake, this exception on this point? The noble Baroness argued that up to now the Secretary of State has not been asked to agree the articles of government for primary schools, or rules of management as they are to be called, so why bother to make the difference now? In that case one might ask, why bother to bring in this Bill? What is the point? When introducing a Bill which makes differences of nomenclature deliberately, and makes them presumably in order to give greater emphasis to certain points, why not seize the opportunity of giving the articles of government of primary schools the same importance in the Minister's eye as the articles of government of secondary schools? The noble Baroness puts forward the view that there seems no reason for making this change merely because they are to be called articles of government instead of rules of management. Are we to take it that that alteration of name is meant as a mere ornament and nothing more, because that is what would seem to follow from her speech.
556
There is another and perhaps larger aspect of the matter which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What are governors for? This question has been repeatedly asked and answered sometimes not at all and sometimes in a great variety of different ways. Presumably, since the articles of government for secondary schools are to require the approval of the Secretary of State, it is assumed that he has some idea as to what the articles of government of a secondary school ought to look like and what the duties of governors ought to be, whereas apparently with regard to primary schools each local education authority is to have its own opinion as to what the duties of governors ought to be. This Bill contains so much about the powers of governors: how many governors there should be; who should appoint them; what proportion should represent parents; staff and all the rest of it. This is a huge long clause and we shall have to spend a good deal of time examining it as regards the appointment and constitution of governing bodies and the duties of governors.
We ought to hear a little more from the Government Benches about what they think the duties of governors ought to be. I agree we could not press them for an absolutely cut and dried and complete answer, but they might at least have a try at it. For example, what ought to be the duties of governors with regard to appointments in the school? It will be found in some parts of the country that, when a head teacher is to be appointed, governors are invited to present to the local education authority a list of three names from which the authority chooses one. In other parts of the country it will be found that the procedure is reversed: that the governors are presented with a list of names from which they may choose one. How far is it one of the duties of governors to make decisions about school uniforms—whether the school should have a uniform, and what kind?
3.24 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I had thought, on reading the amendments, that we would be discussing this matter when we came to Amendment No. 48, which seems to go into considerable detail. From my point of view—I may be quite wrong about this-1 have not been able to understand how the noble Lord is relating the amend-

557
ment we are discussing to more than the change of nomenclature, because that is all the amendment seems to be doing.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I agree that we shall have an opportunity for fuller discussion on the duties of governors on the later amendments. At this stage I am only making a few preliminary remarks. It seems to arise on this clause because the articles of government will presumably give some idea about the duties of governors. The Government are standing by the proposition that, where a secondary school is concerned, this formulation of the duties of governors is a matter that the Secretary of State ought to have under review, whereas for primary schools the Secretary of State apparently is not interested. That raises the question: How important are the articles of government and how important is it to get some idea of what governors do?
However, I accept what the noble Lord has said. We shall have other opportunities to pursue this. I will not press it further now, but I believe we are still all baffled as to why, in a Bill where we are deliberately trying to emphasise that we give as much weight and importance to primary schools as to secondary schools, there should be this implication that the articles of government of a primary school are regarded by the Secretary of State as of less importance than the articles of government of a secondary school. That is the question the Government have not so far answered.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I hesitate to come in at this particular stage, but I think it is right and proper that I should do so. I have spent over two years on the Taylor Report and have made recommendations to governors on this particular question. I have visited 103 authorities throughout the United Kingdom and I have listened to governors and managers. One of the things our committee found was that primary managers wanted parity of esteem with secondary schools. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to do this. I am glad that there are certain amendments on which I shall speak as the debate continues in the course of the next few days, but certain things are completely wrong; therefore, I will support the
558
amendment. I ask the Government to look at this very carefully because if we are going to get the right people in primary schools it is important that they should be treated in the same way as governors in secondary schools and given exactly the same powers.
Baroness YOUNG: I have been asked a number of very important questions. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked: Why bring in this part of the Bill dealing with school governors? As a Government we attach very considerable importance to this first part of the Bill. We are instituting for the first time governing bodies on all secondary and primary schools, except that the small ones would be grouped together. This seems to me a major advance. I served for 12 years on an education committee and I was fortunate to be in a local authority in which all secondary schools had governors and primary schools had managers, although the smaller ones were grouped together. I therefore grew up in a system in which the importance of school governors was recognised.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, recognized—we have all studied his report with great interest—this is not the practice throughout the country. We are attempting for the first time to take what we believe is a major and important step forward by giving all schools, both secondary and primary, governing bodies. What we have said is that they will all have governing bodies for the first time, that there will he school governors of primary schools. I am not prepared to accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, seems to have implied in her remarks, that, because we are not asking the Secretary of State to approve the articles of government of primary schools, this represents some sort of class distinction. I hope we can get away from all these concepts, because in this particular case I regard it as totally irrelevant to the discussion on school governing bodies.
The fact is that the powers of governing bodies vary considerably from place to place. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked this. I think he was referring to the William Tyndale School, the breakdown of which, when it occurred, consisted of considerably more than the curriculum. It was the curriculum, the discipline and

559
a whole number of other matters, something which, whatever part of the House we sit in, we all agree was quite deplorable. I think we would all hope, certainly the Government would hope, that when schools have governing bodies this would prevent that kind of situation from ever arising.
Lord AVEBURY: Will the noble Baroness remind us whether the William Tyndale School—which was the school I was thinking of—had governing bodies, and whether its powers were in theory sufficient to deal with the crisis that arose there? What was the sum aspect of the dispute other than the articles which led to the impasse?
Baroness YOUNG: I have not got the information as to whether that school had managers or not, but I suspect that it probably did.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: It did.
Baroness YOUNG: Thank you very much; I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe this is the kind of matter that governors ought to look at. We are hoping very much that as we come to discuss the later provisions of school government, particularly where we are legislating, there will be provision for a minimum of two parents and two teachers and that these people will interlock—the local education authority, the teachers and the parents—in school government and therefore strengthen the situation.
I have been asked particularly why, on the narrower point of this amendment, we cannot accept what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has asked. The fact is that there are a number of matters about the roles of the local education authority, the governors and the head teachers, which perhaps one should explain in more detail. Articles of government for secondary schools are based on the provisions of the model articles issued in 1945 and cover all the matters which really have been elucidated in the course of this discussion. The rules of management of primary schools commonly follow the same pattern. We have explained that we envisage no fundamental change in the existing distribution of powers and duties.
560
One of the difficulties is that there is no agreement as to what those powers should be, and the last Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Williams, acknowledged this when following the same line in a rather similar debate on the 1978 Education Bill in another place.
My right honourable and learned friend the present Secretary of State made the position of this Government equally plain during the debate on the Second Reading of the Education (No. 2) Bill in November 1979, when he said:
" I accept that we have not attempted to set out the powers of governing bodies any more than the previous Government did, and I accept that the reason why we have not done so is that we believe that if we get the right people on the governing bodies it is up to them to exercise their powers as they feel to be right. That was the provision proposed by my predecessor".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/79; col. 33.]
In fact, what we are saying is that we believe in leaving room for growth and change, providing for scope for the continuous development of the role of governing bodies to suit the needs of the time. The present system provides a framework within which this can and does happen, and both the recent Advisory Centre for Education pamphlet—School Governors: Partnership in Practice—and the Department of Education and Science report on local authority arrangements for the school curriculum show this clearly in their comments on the steadily increasing involvement of governors in the curriculum and educational issues more generally. If we were to agree to this amendment the Secretary of State would have to approve articles of government not only for 5,000 secondary schools but for the 23,000 primary schools.
Baroness DAVID: Surely each local authority would send up its articles of government for approval. Individual schools would not send them up. It would be only 104.
Baroness YOUNG: I agree that in that sense there would be fewer, but what the Government would be much more inclined to do would be to say that neither should be approved by the Secretary of State, rather than that both should be approved. This would be an alternative, which of course is not here.
We have considered this matter very carefully and we believe that we have

561
gone as far as we can on this question of school government in trying to strike the right relationship between central and local government. We feel that we have it in accepting the practice of secondary schools now, and we believe it would be right to leave the articles of government on primary schools to the local education authorities. We all recognise the importance of primary schools, and we shall be discussing this subject on Clauses 6 to 8. But on this particular matter the Government have gone as far as they can. They feel they have struck the right balance between central and local government.
Lord PARRY: The noble Baroness's tone was so conciliatory at the beginning of her remarks that it seemed we were very close to having an agreement that was quite fundamental to the Bill that follows. Her quotation from the Secretary of State in another place seemed to me to strengthen the argument that has been put forward from these Benches for a change in the status and the provision of a governing rather than a management body for primary schools. A great deal of evidence in this behalf has been put forward by the National Union of Teachers which is the major union representing teachers in primary schools. It seemed to me that We had reached a point where the introduction of a governing body at the primary school level would be wholly helpful to the Minister, whatever the party in Government at the time.
Only one point has not been made in argument for this, and it is the point that it is recognised that the one remaining major cohesive unit within the community is the primary school. Division arises over whether children shall be educated at a particular type of school at 11-plus, but generally speaking, particularly in the rural community, the primary school unites parents regardless of class.
The Minister made a point very carefully in direct response to a remark by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who was making the point that there was a divisive attitude to the government of schools that reflected something deeper in the concept of education. The Minister made a very careful and well argued reply. I am suggesting that the primary school is a unifying influence and, because it is, the role of the parents in the school should be strengthened. By giving a governing
562
body of a secondary nature to primary schools the Minister would—if she is sincere, as I believe her to be—seek to achieve what she says she believes in.
Lord AVEBURY: I should like to say one more word before we conclude on this amendment. It seemed to me that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was aiming at parity of treatment between the primary and secondary schools. If the Government are really prepared to think in terms of the local education authorities approving the statutes of both primary and secondary schools, this could have been a way round it that nobody had thought of before this debate. One possible solution would be for this amendment to be withdrawn on the undertaking that on Report stage the noble Baroness would bring forward an amendment that would give parity of treatment by causing the local education authorities to have the responsibility for both sets of articles. I do not know whether this would be acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and her colleagues, but certainly it would achieve that part of what she set out to do.
I want to make one other point that occurred to me when the Minister was talking about the models. She said that in 1945 model articles were issued by the Department of Education and Science (or the Ministry of Education as it was then), in respect of secondary schools; and that the primary schools—I think I followed her words—commonly followed the same pattern; in other words, that many of the articles in the primary schools are identical to those in the model issued for guidance in 1945.
Leaving aside the fact that it is rather astonishing that so little progress has been made in 35 years—that the same set of articles is still considered to be valid—the point I want to suggest for consideration is that to relieve the pressure of work on the Secretary of State, which is what primarily seemed to concern the Minister in her answer (in that she did not want to have to look at 23,000 different sets of articles, even though probably in most instances local education authorities will have the same set of articles for all the primary schools in their areas) one possible solution to this would be for only the articles which differed from those in the model to be submitted to the Secretary of State, whether it he in the secondary or

563
primary school. So the Secretary of State would then have to consider purely the exceptions, which might be very limited in number, assuming that both local education authorities followed the pattern which was laid down by the Secretary of State.
I am not sure to what extent these models fit the needs of most local education authorities and of most sets of governors. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Baroness whether in practice the large majority of the secondary schools have traditionally followed the guidance that was laid down so long ago; or to what extent there is departure on a regional basis, to which I think one noble Lord referred earlier. In the case of the selection of the head teacher there was a difference in practice. In one case the names were submitted by the local education authority and selection was made by the governors, and in another case the names were submitted by the governors and the final selection was made by the local education authority. I am not sure which of these particular solutions was laid down in the rules in 1945. The suggestion I am making is that if the local authority follows that guidance, there need be nothing submitted to the Secretary of State whatsoever; it would automatically come into effect. But where the rules depart from the model, ultimately the DES would have to approve them. If this was a solution which minimised the number of decisions that had to be made by central Government, and fitted in with the general philosophy, which, I understand, underlies the Bill, of granting as much power as possible to the local education authority, I hope that it would be acceptable to all sides of the Committee.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to answer the two noble Lords in reverse order from that in which they spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether we could not get some kind of parity of treatment between primary and secondary schools, and suggested that if we could not get any agreement on the powers of school governing bodies, the matter should be left for the local education authorities themselves to decide. If in fact that is the wish—and it is certainly not a matter which we as a
564
Government have considered; I merely stated it because our thinking would probably be in that direction, rather than in the other—it is precisely the reverse of what the amendment is asking for. It is asking for more central prescription by the Secretary of State, and not less. So it seems to me that it would be difficult.
I have been asked in particular why the Secretary of State approves the articles of secondary schools, but not of primary schools. The answer is that there are model articles laid down, based upon the proposals written in 1945, but quite a large number of authorities and secondary schools vary very widely from what has been suggested, from the model rules; in fact they do have to be looked at by the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties is that because there would be so many more primary schools they would have to be looked at, too.
I should now like to turn to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, made. I am glad that he feels that I am reasonable. I think he will find during the whole course of these proceedings that I am invariably reasonable. In fact I agree with the noble Lord; primary schools, particularly in rural areas, are often a focal point for the community. They are a cohesive unit. They are extremely important. I agree—and my colleagues agree, too—that they are a unifying influence, and they are extremely important in the life of a child. It is precisely for that reason that we arc legislating for the first time for primary schools to have school governing bodies, for there to be two parents on the bodies —something which has never existed in law before, and on which in principle I am sure we all agree, because we believe in the involvement of the parents. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, I think, that he hoped that the role of the parents would be strengthened, and I agree with him on that matter.
What we are saying is that in all our proposals on the first five clauses of the Bill we are establishing school governing bodies by statute for all types of schools. We are bringing parents and teachers on to the governing bodies for the first time. In all these matters it is a question of a careful constitutional balance involving central Government, local government, governors, parents, teachers, and, finally,

565
the children. But in the main it is a balance between central and local government, and we feel that we must balance one area with another throughout the Bill. We can debate at length the question of whether we have the balance right. The Government feel that they have, and in existing circumstances we believe we have agreement with the local authorities, who will be glad to carry out these proposals and think that they are right. Therefore we feel it right to stand where we are now in regard to this balance; but this does not mean that we do not absolutely accept the importance of primary schools—
Lord PARRY: Will the noble Baroness give way? She is very forbearing and very kind. May I make the point that the reorganisation of local government has brought about a severing, a distancing, of the control of local government by the people. This is generally felt in the whole of the country. Will the noble Baroness accept that she is not historically quite accurate when she tells us that this is the first time that this proposal is coming forward. It is perfectly true that it is the first time that there has been a management structure in certain of the schools, because they were grouped. But prior to the reorganisation of local government—and t do not mean the reorganisation in the most immediate past, but that which occurred under the 1944 Education Act when I was myself in college—there was a board school structure, which provided an immediate and closely governed visitation to the local primary school, to the point where the management actually went in every week to talk over matters of school attendance and day-to-day administration. Over the last 30 or 40 years, under several Acts of Parliament, local government has moved further away from the people, and I am arguing for a closer relationship in one area where the Minister has already admitted that it is vital.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support my noble friend on this matter? My noble friend comes from an area that was formerly Pembrokeshire, where the seat of government is about 75 miles away from one particular part of the county. Therefore there is remoteness, and so it is more important
566
than ever that governors should be part and parcel of the community.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on what the noble Lords, Lord Parry and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, are saying. We all know that local government units became larger under the reorganisation of 1972. What was Pembrokeshire is now known, I think, as Dyfed and it consists of three counties. My pronounciation may not be quite correct, but I know where the area is. The Government absolutely accept the importance of the smaller unit, the school unit, the school governing bodies; and that is what all this matter is about—and bringing parents and teachers on to governing bodies for the first time. I cannot see how government would become less remote if the Secretary of State had to approve these articles, rather than the local education authority, which in this context is of course much nearer than the Secretary of State. Therefore I think that we should all agree on this.
Baroness DAVID: I should like to say at once that the aim in putting forward the amendment is not to gain greater control, but to give a higher status to the primary schools and to stop the differentiation between secondary and primary. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger put that point extremely well. The Minister said that there will be no changes at this time, as if the Government might be thinking about changes in the future; but surely now, when the Bill is going through, is the time to make the change. There are major advances in the Bill. Indeed, many of the clauses are the same as clauses in the 1978 Labour Bill, which fell at the Dissolution; and I am glad that there are a good many matters on which we all agree. The Minister says that the Government recognise the great importance of the primary schools. So why not take this final step, and let us have deeds, not words? I am going to press this amendment to a Division.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Gosford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Reilly, L.

Blease, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Soper, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Strauss, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denington, B.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Airedale, L.

Galloway, E.

Orkney, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gibson-Watt,L.

Petre, L.

Alport, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Porritt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gormanston, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amulree, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Armstrong, L.

Grey, E.

Renton, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Avebury, L.

Haig, E.

Robbins, L.

Avon, E.

Hampton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Hatherton, L.

Romney, E.

Barnby, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hives, L.

St. Just, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Blake, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Clancarty, E.

Inchyra, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcyclde, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

De Freyne, L.!

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Swaythling, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Energlyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Wolfenden, L.

Exeter, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Wynford, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("foundation governors").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is akin to Amendments Nos. 5, 13, 14, 16 and 18. Indeed, some of the others are merely consequential on No. 4. Here, again, it may appear at first sight that one is concerned only with the matter of nomenclature, but I think it is rather more than that. The object of this and the related amendments is to cease referring to governors all the time according to the body which appoints them. It is recognised that there are certain schools in which there are some governors appointed by the local authority; some will be appointed by the parents and other groups; and some will be appointed by the foundation, and are known as "foundation governors". They may be, and in many cases are, of course, appointed by a religious denomination, but that is by no means so in all cases. Indeed, in London many years ago I myself taught in a school where some of the governors were appointed by one of the minor city companies. But what we are arguing in this amendment is that we should no longer keep the specific label "foundation governors "for some of them, and that they should be referred to throughout as "governors".
The point is that it will he a good thing if all the governors of a school think of themselves as members of one body. They have not come together as rival sections, one section appointed by one group and another by another: once there they should think of themselves as working together for the good of the school.
At meetings of governors there can arise questions to which the answer is by no means obvious at the beginning of the argument and which cannot be decided by referring back to some general principles one has in mind. Many of them arc topics on which one genuinely wants to listen to the arguments and give a vote at the end according to the merits. We do not want governors to be so labelled that we think of them as: "These are foundation governors and those are not". One would not want anything approaching a kind of whipping system to grow up between different groups of governors, or one foundation governor to feel that he had a duty to vote as other foundation governors voted; and the same would apply to the local authority governors.
We want them to feel that, however
570
many the sources from which they are appointed, once they are there they are all governors on an equal footing. I noticed, looking at reports of debates in the other place on this, that there were some criticisms of some foundation governors. It was alleged on good authority —and I had effort in believing it—that about 10 years ago, if you looked at the foundation governors of certain well-known schools of this kind in Birmingham, the average age of the foundation governors was 83—to which it was argued in defence that this must have meant that they approached the problems they discussed with a great wealth of experience.
I feel that if foundation governors arc always thought of as, and labelled as, a different body, the foundation may feel, "It is all right; we are entitled to so many governors. We put them there and they stay there until a vacancy inevitably occurs". We want the foundation to feel that it has a duty to provide people who will be good colleagues with all of the other governors. If they feel like that, we are less likely to get the astounding result which apparently occurred in Birmingham.
It may be argued that we are asking for nothing more than a change in name; but the Bill shows in many of its clauses the importance (to a limited point but not inconsiderably) of nomenclature, of using words and phrases that point in a certain direction. The change that I am suggesting here would point in the direction of a body of governors all united by the fact that they were governors trying to do their best for the school from whatever source they may be appointed. I hope that the Government may be able to look on it favourably.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support the amendment? I serve on an electricity board as a part-time member. There are two full-time members and six part-time members. We feel, as part-time members, that we are second-class citizens. This is completely wrong because we make the same decisions as do the two full-time members. The same applies to schools. Again, people find that the foundation governors feel that they are more part of the school than anyone else. I am sure that the right reverend Prelates would agree with the words in St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,

571
" We are all one body in Christ ",
and, therefore, we are all one body on a governing body. I think it very important indeed that we should all feel equal together.
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: If I may break in for a moment, it would be suitable to respond to that theological expertise. In the Council of Jerusalem in the 15th Chapter of Acts, they took counsel together. And in the taking of counsel together, it was set out quite plainly that the Apostles and the Elders—and noble Lords will remember that "Elders "is derived from the word "presbyteros", which is "presbyter "or "priest "today—and the brethren took counsel together. But they took counsel from their own viewpoints and then found a greater unity in the recognition of their diversity than they would have found in the non-recognition of their original unity. Therefore, having been stung to my feet by the noble Lord's remarks, I feel that I shall now resist this amendment rather more strongly than if I had not been woken from my other thoughts on other matters. I feel that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite ought not really to quote in this House the age of 83 in reference to the Birmingham foundation governors, because I have discovered, in the five or six years that I have been here, that our wisdom increases with our years.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: I have to make the confession that I am a foundation governor. I also find, if I am unlucky enough to be rung up by the Press, that their first question is, "What is your age?" I am tempted these days to make it older and older. I make it 103 now; but I think it might get older. I have never had any feeling whatsoever of difference in voting. It had never occurred to me to vote in any way except for what I believed was for the best interest of the school. It had never occurred to me until your Lordships brought it up this afternoon that there should, where the welfare of the schools is concerned, be a difference in the voting between foundation and other governors.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: As somebody from Birmingham, I can say
572
that there are a lot of different people serving on different kinds of bodies. The foundation governors have always been a bone of contention for elected members of the educational authority in the City of Birmingham. We always found when sitting on these school boards that, somehow or other, the foundation governors had got together before the meeting started (as my noble friend Lord Stewart has said) with the idea very often of pushing through the business that they intended to push through, regardless of how the rest of the governing body felt. We felt that on many occasions this caused disharmony where disharmony ought not to have existed. This arose from the fact that somebody says "foundation governor". As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, this somehow gives a status.
In the same way, I suppose my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that if you put "PC "after your name when you become a Member of Parliament, that again gives you a certain status over and above the majority of Members of Parliament. The impression I have gained, having served as a member of the Birmingham Education Authority, is that in practice there has often been dissension at the start of a meeting when there has been no need for it, because of the close collaboration between the foundation governors and the head of the school before the rest of us have even turned up at the meeting.
The LORD BISHOP of DERBY: I am sure we all support the intention behind this amendment, but the arguments produced by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, did not lead to the conclusions at which he arrived. Those of us who serve on a variety of governing bodies know perfectly well that groups of elected governors can get together as easily as any other governors to decide in advance the line which they will take corporately. This kind of accusation which is thrown from one group at another does not help the argument forward at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has seriously impugned the integrity of a great many people who are chosen in one way or another to serve as school managers or governors. We should work towards the aim that all who serve on governing bodies should be people of integrity, who

573
can use independence of judgment and seek the good of the institution which they have been appointed to serve. I believe that merely to change the name in the way suggested would not achieve the intended result.
Viscount SIMON: I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby that one may be attracted initially by the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, but the fact is that it seeks merely to alter a name and does not alter the position in any way at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, complained about foundation governors getting into a huddle. They can still get into a huddle, whether we call them "foundation governors "or not. It would not be so difficult if there were only foundation governors and local authority governors, but we shall have parent governors and, one hopes, teacher governors. It is difficult not to use some term to distinguish the place from which a particular governor conies. I express the hope that all good governing bodies should think of themselves as governors of the school and not just as the type of governor they happen to be. However, I do not think that it helps just to change their name.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): The members of the governing bodies of all secondary schools, including voluntary schools, are already called governors. As has already been said, the Bill already provides for all primary schools, including voluntary schools, to have governors and governing bodies. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary in terms of the purpose of the clause as introduced. The fact is that foundation governors are distinguished by the specific common purpose for which they are appointed and which is prescribed in statute. They have responsibilities which are not shared by the other governors.
These amendments would have the effect of standardising their method of appointment, but the instrument of government for each school already clearly sets out how the foundation governors for that
574
school are appointed, and there may be a number of persons and bodies involved. The term in the amendment, "the voluntary body concerned ", is too vague to cover the range of circumstances involved. There is no need to standardise the method of their appointment and no reason why schools should not retain their own traditions and individuality in such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to governing bodies on which he had served, or like institutions. I, too, have served on many governing bodies in another incarnation, not all that long ago. At no time when I was not a foundation governor did I feel a second-class citizen. I am grateful for the intervention and support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich; I was also glad to hear the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. Who does not recognise the enormous contribution to education made by the denominational schools? The noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, said that she had never felt any inhibitions in voting in such circumstances. I subscribe to that view entirely, remembering all the foundation governors with whom I have served over the years.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that the existence of foundation governors causes disharmony. The fact is that there are specific statutory duties imposed on such governors, and one cannot get away from that fact. Therefore, in all the circumstances, although I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, I do not think the Committee should accept this amendment as it stands.
Lord PARRY: My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham does not need me to defend him, but surely it is recognised that in introducing this amendment he is not simply going in for semantics. Foundation governors are like foundation garments: they exist to keep the shape of the body, perhaps long after that shape has changed beyond recognition.
The Education Act 1944 resolved a very difficult question. The interventions of the right reverend Prelates reminded us of the fact that that Act provided a happy resolution of a difficult issue. The basic question is that the position of a founda-

575
tion governor on a governing body is related to a later argument on the relationship in numbers between foundation governors and other governors. That is a fundamental point. If in an aided school or an assisted school nominees of the original body setting up that school remain as foundation governors, their relationship in numbers to the others is very important. That will be taken up by the Committee on a later clause. Therefore, it was vital that my noble friend Lord Stewart raised this point.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I am sorry that at this early stage in our discussions I have to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. I have had the unique experience of having for a very long time been chairman of governors in a Catholic school. I have had to fight off, on the one hand, the Westminster Schools' Commission and, on the other hand, the ILEA. If anybody wishes to witness a buck-passing exercise, they have to look no farther than that example. If one group says that it is not its responsibility, then the other group equally says it is not its responsibility either.
I wish to correct one idea. As a foundation governor, I certainly would not stay in that position until I was 83. I have not yet reached that age. In fact, the time we served as a school governor was limited. I cannot remember any occasion when we enjoyed any special privilege. The elected representatives, in the same way as they do in the other place, were always pointing out to us that they were much more important than we were. When certain people were anxious for me to be made chairman and my period as a foundation governor had ceased, it was arranged in some mysterious way for me suddenly to become an elected governor. In that way I became chairman.
I believe that once a person serves on a governing body, the reason for his or her being there becomes unimportant. One is then concerned with the school. Therefore, although I shall support my noble friend Lord Stewart on every other amendment on this Bill, I regard this amendment as rather unworthy of him. A foundation governor who serves on a government body is no different from any other governor.
Lord BELLWIN: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her support. It is from a most unexpected direction, if I may say so; but, none the less, very much welcome. I must say that she put it so well. It was exactly what I was trying to say but did not put quite so well. But, speaking from my own experience, I never felt in any way second-class or whatever. Nor did the foundation governors, in my experience, ever try in any way to make us feel like that. It may be I was very fortunate—and, of course, coming from Leeds, I would not expect it to be otherwise. But I must say that that is my experience. The point that the noble Lord. Lord Parry, made was very interesting; but it does not get us away from the fact that there is still a basic statutory requirement on foundation governors and therefore there they are. I still say again that I fear we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I have listened to the noble Lord opposite and to my noble friend Lady Phillips. Weighing everything up, I do not wish to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause I agreed to.
Schedule 1 [School government: consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Schedule I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Requirements as to governing bodies]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 6A:
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").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment—and this might be taken conveniently with some others on the Marshalled List—is an important one. There is a series of schools in the country,

577
the non-maintained special schools, which are defined under regulations laid down under the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959. They are almost entirely maintained by the LEAs. There are 112 of them. They cater for over four-fifths of the blind children, half the deaf children and a third of the handicapped children, in residential special schools.
Those of us who are concerned with special education feel strongly that this very large provision of special education which is apparently in the independent sector but is wholly maintained by the local authorities calls for them to be given the same treatment as we are giving to maintained schools in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel that this idea is worthy of consideration. It is a very important group. I know that this is going to be brought forward in the White Paper on Warnock, and that the Warnock Bill will probably be presented in the next Session—at least we hope it will. It seems that this is a step which Warnock would support. Since this is dealing with school governors in general at the present moment, there seems no reason why these schools should not be included in the present Bill.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this point because it is important. Warnock makes a similar recommendation to this. It is important that we carry the special schools with us because the special schools do not want to be any different from the rest of the schools. They want to be part and parcel. They do not want any special treatment at all, but they want to be looked upon as being part of the overall system of education in the United Kingdom.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: May I also support my noble friend? As he has already said, these schools are totally unlike other independent schools. The important point is that the education of almost all the children attending these schools is paid for by the local authorities. They are, as the Warnock Report says, part of the national system of educational provision in a way that independent schools are not. Surely these schools
578
should be brought into line with similar schools in the maintained sector. At present they are virtually autonomous and they can choose their governing bodies, subject to their trust deeds, under the 1959 regulations, as my noble friend said. Some of these schools do not have any parent governors, and some have no local authority representative governors; under present regulations, teachers are not allowed to be governors. Many parents are very worried about the lack of representation on governing bodies. I feel that they have an invaluable contribution to make because they are the people who have the day-to-day experience of looking after a handicapped child. They understand what it is all about.
Experience in the maintained sector of special schools, where parents have been elected as governors, has shown that they have an invaluable contribution to make far in excess of that of other governors because, as I have said, they have experienced handicap; they take the lead in bringing together the other parents in voluntary efforts in support of the schools, and they are the people who are most ready to take all the other children out on trips.
At the Report stage in another place on 12th February the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science conceded the principle that the non-maintained special schools should be treated the same as the maintained special schools. This is very important. At column 1383 of Hansard of 12th February, he said:
" 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 submit that if the principle is right, then surely the right place to deal with the non-maintained special schools is in this Bill, in the clauses dealing with the maintained special schools. I hope the Committee will support my noble friend's amendment warmly.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister how many of these non-maintained schools which receive grants under the Special Schools and Establishments (Grant) Regulations 1959 do not have governors and governing bodies. I speak

579
now as vice-chairman of the Spina Bifida Association. I hope that in this Bill, when dealing with handicap schools and handicapped people, we will go forwards and not backwards. It is integration, and not segregation, that all the associations dealing with disabled people want. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will look very carefully at this matter throughout the Bill.
Lord PARRY: I should like to associate myself immediately in support of the amendment, as president of the Spastic Society in Wales and the Society for the Mentally Handicapped there. I know of the concern of parents and indeed of the societies, although I do not commit them to my views. It is absolutely essential that it be understood that if the parent of the normal child—and I use my words carefully—has a contribution to make in the government of the school, then a parent of a handicapped family, handicapped by having special difficulties that arise out of the birth of handicapped children, has a specific contribution to make. I not only support this myself but urge my own Front Bench to give support to this amendment.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I too support this amendment. I believe it would have the general support of educational authorities in the country.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope the Government will accept this amendment. It is more important to have a governing body constituted in this way in a special school than in an ordinary school. Therefore, to leave out special schools is singularly unfortunate. It may be that one can deal with this if one is dealing later with the Warnock report. I see no reason why it should not be done now. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Baroness DAVID: Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I should like to support this amendment. I think it is necessary that these schools should have the same sort of representation and I hope that the Minister when replying will not say that it is going to be very difficult to appoint parents and so on. It may be, sometimes, if it is a non-maintained
580
boarding school, but I am sure the difficulties could be overcome.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: We, too, on these Benches are concerned about this matter and would support this amendment, but we would withhold our judgment until we hear what the Government have to say. The relationship of any special schools and the ordinary educational system is very much in the melting pot at the moment, as the noble Baroness had told us before. While I think it is an immense pity that we have not been able to deal with these matters while this Bill is going through, nevertheless we must look carefully at the various arguments. In principle, I am sure that this amendment should be supported widely throughout the Chamber.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to say absolutely at the outset how important the Government regard the position of special schools to be. May I also make it quite clear that Clause 2(6) of course applies the provision of school government to special schools. It also includes special schools, where possible, in a hospital, with slightly different provisions, because the circumstances are slightly different, as everyone who is familiar with these schools will know. However, we have gone as far as we can.
The particular series of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Vaizey and supported by many noble Lords are not, of course, about maintained special schools but about non-maintained special schools, and it is because they are non-maintained special schools that we have not been able to include them in the Bill at the present time. I was therefore particularly grateful for the careful words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on this subject because I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to explain how the Government see this position.
May I say right away that there are in fact very good reasons, which I hope can explain to your Lordships, why it has not been possible to cover non-maintained schools in this present Bill. One reason is that the schools are, as many of your Lordships will know much better than I, run by voluntary bodies, mainly charities, so that changes in their government would

581
in fact involve amendments to their trust deeds. It is perfectly true that the Warnock Committee considered that they should in principle be governed in the same way as maintained special schools—and may I say now that the Government completely accept that principle. We believe that the principles we have applied to what I may describe as ordinary schools and which we have legislated for in our provision on maintained special schools, including the hospital schools, should apply to non-maintained special schools as well.
The reason why we are not able to accept this amendment and therefore bring in these provisions, which we accept in principle, is that in the first place it would be very difficult to do so today, before we have had any consultation with the voluntary bodies who run these schools. Although I think we are all in agreement in principle, we cannot just ride roughshod over organisations like Doctor Barnardo's, the Shaftesbury Society, the Royal National Institutes for the Blind and the Deaf and many other charitable organisations which make such a valuable contribution to special education and who are well aware of the desirability of close involvement of parents in all aspects of school life.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: But surely there have been consultations between the Warnock Committee and the voluntary bodies on the subject?
Baroness YOUNG: I think undoubtedly there was considerable consultation. I was not myself a member of the Warnock Committee but I have no doubt that voluntary bodies gave evidence to that Committee and that they were consulted. But when the Government come to legislate upon an important issue like this, I think it would be wrong for us to agree to an amendment which concerns a non-maintained school, which is run by an organisation such as Doctor Barnardo's or the National Institutes for the Blind or the Deaf, without consulting them. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would accept that.
This is not in any way to go back on our belief in the importance of bringing parent governors on to the boards of these particular schools. The way democracy
582
works is that you do always at least consult people before coming to some conclusions that enormously affect what they are doing. We should at the very least consult with these bodies on how parallel arrangements for parent and teacher governors could best be made, and recognise any complications that might have to be overcome. I think all noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on this matter will recognise that over 90 per cent. of non-maintained special schools providing boarding education for handicapped children frequently do so on a nation-wide basis, and the effective representation of parents on governing bodies would not be quite so straightforward as it is in the matter of a local authority school.
At this stage I should like very much to reiterate what I said when I repeated a Statement on our proposals on the Warnock Report, so that any of your Lordships who were not in the House on that occasion will know that the Government are committed to introduce an early Bill to enact a new framework of special education, substantially on the lines recommended by the Warnock Committee. There will thus be an opportunity to consider for inclusion in that Bill any necessary provisions touching on the government of non-maintained special schools. We shall be able to do so with the benefit of the arguments that have been adduced today in relation to this amendment and, I have no doubt, on the amendments relating to Clause 9, to which I shall listen with great care.
I hope therefore that, with these remarks, my noble friend Lord Vaizey will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I should like to repeat my assurance on behalf of the Government that there is nothing between us on principle over this, but we feel it would not be right to go ahead and accept these amendments at this stage. However, we shall consider everything that has been said in relation to what our proposals will be on the Warnock Report.
Lord VAIZEY: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. If I may just briefly touch on some of the points she has made, of course the problem of nation-wide catchment areas

583
is an acute one; but it also affects hospital schools, with which the Bill deals, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is correct: consultations have already been held extensively. But the Minister is equally correct in saying that before legislation is introduced consultations should be held on the basis of the proposed legislation. I also think that trust deeds are always used in a "chancery lawyer" kind of argument. Trust deeds, after all, are amendable, and presumably the Charity Commissioners exist to see that trust deeds are amended in accordance with changes in the law. That is how it seems to a naive layman, who believes that law should be the handservant and not the master of Parliament.
Having said that, since I am probably the only person present who was educated in a special school, I feel quite deeply that these are the schools which most urgently need parent governors of all kinds. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I am well aware of the deep interest and enthusiasm of my noble friend on the Front Bench on this question. I accept her assurances, and we shall look forward very much both to the debate on Clause 9 and to the proposed legislation on the Warnock Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord PARRY: As the amendment is being withdrawn, may I be allowed to say that there is a real danger that the noble Baroness the Minister was arguing on both sides of the equation in support of her own position in this case, since you cannot argue that you should not introduce legislation without discussing it with interested bodies and then introduce legislation that effectively excludes them. You should also have discussions with them if they are to be excluded. I think the Minister will understand my concern when I say that there is a real worry among bodies interested in special schools that they might find themselves excluded from the educational provisions and put under a social service arrangement, which has already been done with some aspects of the special education service at adult level. If we can have some assurance at this stage that the Government do not presage anything of that nature in their proposed legislation, it will be helpful.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: As the noble Baroness was not able to answer my question about the governors and the governing bodies, I should like to ask her another question. If she is able to answer this question, it may take some of the worries away from many organisations When do the Government intend to bring in this other Bill which will implement Warnock? That is the big question. Is it to be this year or in four years' time?
Baroness YOUNG: May I first apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? I am sorry that I did not answer her question. The fact is that all non-maintained special schools must have governing bodies, as a condition of being recognised as special schools under the handicapped pupils and special schools regulations of 1959. So I apologise to her for not giving that information. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what she and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, have said on this subject.
On the question of the Warnock Report, I do not think I can go further than I have already done. I am very conscious of the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls about the difficulties that I should find myself in. I can only reiterate the assurance that I gave when I made a Statement on Warnock, that we intend to introduce an early Bill to enact a new framework. I do not really believe that an early Bill is four years on. It is too important. It is two years since Mrs. Warnock and her committee reported.
We are well aware, both in this House and in another place, of the genuine concern expressed by those who take a particular interest in special education—and this is not just a form of words. I am not myself responsible for writing the Queen's Speech, and the noble Baroness and the Committee will understand that I cannot give an absolute assurance, but it is certainly the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues and I that there will be early legislation on this matter.
I absolutely accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has made. He said that parents are very worried about the position of special schools and we

585
are well aware of this. There is a very real difficulty about legislating for special schools in this Bill, except in so far as we can do so without having to amend a great many Acts of Parliament and so on. On his point about having discussions, I think I should be right in saying that, whatever party is in power, it has discussions on legislation with interested parties. It would be unusual to have discussions with organisations that were not to be included in the Bill. We should have discussions with organisations that were to be referred—
Lord PARRY: The noble Baroness will accept that I was simply picking up her defence; that she defended herself by saying that she could not introduce legislation without having had discussions.
Baroness YOUNG: And I think, if I may say so, that this is right. We should be greatly criticised for introducing legislation and not having discussions with the bodies concerned, which are obviously crucial to these schools. We should be legislating upon the schools without discussing with the people most concerned with them. But that is in no way to get away from the essential point with which the Committee is concerned.
Lord PARRY: I thought the noble Baroness was making the point that she had in fact had those discussions.
Baroness YOUNG: No, we have not had the discussions and I would not wish to pursue this matter further. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for agreeing to withdraw this amendment and I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee will accept that we shall certainly take these points into consideration on a future Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendment No. 34 with this amendment; indeed, it would be total nonsense not to discuss No. 34 with this amendment. As at present drafted, this amendment merely
586
covers the matters with which subsection (1) of Clause 2 deals. That subsection provides for certain provisions, which are then laid down in subsections (2) to (8), to be included in the instrument of government. We want to add an extra provision, which is effected by Amendment No. 34, for the election of a chairman.
At the moment, the position of schools varies very widely over the country in different types of schools. In some cases, it is extremely satisfactory but in others it is not. What we are trying to get away from in this amendment is the situation in some schools and areas about which we all know where the governing bodies of schools are dominated by people nominated by the local authority who do not have a very great interest in education. We know that there are plenty of people nominated by local authorities who have an immense interest in education, and there are a large number of extremely good governing bodies. But we also know that in certain parts of the country that is not the position, and where it is not it is often the practice that the chairman of the governing body is a straight nominee of the local education authority.
We think that this is wrong for two reasons. First, any of your Lordships who have served on governing bodies—and I suppose that that is probably the majority of noble Lords in the Committee —know how important a chairman can be on a body such as this. Pulling together representatives of different interests and people from different backgrounds to work together as an effective governing body can be a difficult task. It should be the job of someone in whom the governing body as a whole has confidence, and there can be no better way of ensuring that than by democratic election. Therefore, we should like it to be definitely laid down in the regulations which govern all these governing bodies that the chairman should be chosen by election. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said in moving his amendment, which I understand is a paving amendment for No. 34. As he will know, the model instrument of governors for county schools does, in fact, provide what he would like to achieve and this represents standard practice throughout

587
the country. However, he is quite right in saying that there are some authorities where this does not apply and, having listened carefully to what he has said, I should like to say to him that if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage I shall be happy to bring back an amendment on Report which meets the case. What we require to do is not to put this provision into Clause 2, which is concerned with the composition of governing bodies, since matters relating to the proceedings of governing bodies are dealt with in Clause 4 and in the regulations made under it. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall bring back an amendment on Report that meets this point.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister. I am sure that this is an improvement. I did not at any stage consider that my drafting or the insertion at this point were necessarily right, and I look forward to the amendment which the Government will bring forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("who shall outnumber the other members of the governing body by two if that body has 18 or fewer members and by three if it has more").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I am well aware that there are opposing views on this issue. There are those who would say that in the interests of wider democracy the local education authority should not have a majority view on governing bodies. On the other hand, there are those, and I count myself among them, who say that where the local authority is responsible directly for the service—certainly where it is responsible financially for the service—then the local authority in all those areas should have a majority. I was reminded over the weekend of a local councillor in South Wales—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—who was asked whether he believed that the local education authority should have the power to appoint a majority on governing bodies. He said he thought that there were pros and cons for it and pros and cons against it!
When I arrived in local government I spent the first year on the education committee, and that was quite enough for me. I made off for calmer waters and became the leader of the authority. I found that life was much easier after that. I was usually called in to arbitrate on matters and often used to get myself into very deep water with some of the vested interests that involve themselves in education. Of course, they are very great. I even took the principle of the local education authority having the major responsibility in these matters to the point of insisting that the institute of higher and further education should have a majority of elected representatives upon it, because I felt very deeply about the principle.
I do not think that there is anybody who would say that local education authorities, as a breed, ride roughshod over the wishes of parents. I do not think that would be maintained for one moment by anybody. Certainly in the governing bodies that I have sat on there has never been a demand for parents and other interested individuals and groups to have a majority on the governing body. At the end of the day there is another court to which the parents and others can appeal—that is, the elected representatives. I found that the safety net for parents and, indeed, for anybody who is involved in education is to put pressure on their elected representatives if they wish to get things changed. In my view, this is a matter of principle. I believe that local education authorities should be able to appoint a majority to the governing bodies, and I so move.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment. If this amendment is passed, in many areas the effect will be that the only people who will wish to go on governing bodies will be members of the education committee. The number of governing bodies that each of them will have to be a member of in order to meet this requirement will be considerable. Each will have to be the governor of perhaps 10 schools. Whether a governor of 10 schools can really fulfil the functions of a governor I greatly doubt. It is very difficult as a governor to be interested in 10 schools rather than in one. I do not think that this is a practical proposition.

589
I speak from experience, having tried to apply it.
4.55 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: Like the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, I, too, was put on to the education committee in my first year in local government and like him I, too, eventually became the leader of my authority. So it would seem that a basic prerequisite for potential leaders is to go on to the education committee in their first year.
I feel that it would not be right to deprive the foundation governors of their majority on the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools. It is through the opening of the governing body that foundation governors exercise their functions. The trustees, diocesan authorities, et cetera, have no other channel through which to act. The two situations are not the same. The governors of such schools are in a quite different position from the governing bodies of county schools. In particular, the governors control admissions, are the employers of the teaching staff, enter into building and other contracts and have specific responsibility for the religious instruction given in the school. Foundation governors have to be in a majority to ensure the proper exercise of their functions.
Local education authorities can exercise influence and control over county schools through a variety of channels and can properly be left to decide for themselves whether they want to appoint a majority of the governing body. Some authorities have effectively dispensed with local education authority majorities already within the limitation imposed by the present statutory provisions. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said. I know one governor who was on eight governing bodies at the same time. I readily concur with the noble Lord's view that one really finds difficulty in doing a good job in those circumstances.
Baroness DAVID: I think that there is a slight misunderstanding. If governors are appointed by the local education authority they do not have to be members of that body. They are representatives of that body and they can be chosen from anywhere. Obviously you could not have education committee members on every
590
governing body in the area, However, they are representative of the local education authority, so you can choose from a very wide field indeed.
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, I entirely accept that, but in practice it is surprising how local education authorities do in fact appoint so many of their members to so many governing bodies. If the noble Baroness, Lady David, is making the point that they should not and that they ought to bring in more from other sources, one can only agree with her.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I wonder whether I may come in on this point. I apologise for having to leave the Chamber for a few moments. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. This is absolutely stupid. I came up, as did the noble Lord, by becoming the chairman of the education committee and then the leader of the local authority. I do not know whether that is the line of thought which goes on in local authorities, but this is what happened. As chairman of the education committee, I found myself as the chairman of 27 governors or managers of schools, which was absolutely ridiculous because one could not pay due respect to the work done in the schools. When, therefore, we looked into the government and management of schools we looked very closely at this point and came to the conclusion that it was wrong for anybody to be a governor of more than three schools. We thought it was right and proper that it should be three schools. May I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this? We felt also that they should not just be members of the local education authority but should be people with a wide interest, right across the board, who would support the local education authority. We felt that they should be there because county councillors and district councillors cannot do everything.
There is a problem about the attendance allowance. I know that this will not go down well. Nevertheless, I should like to make it quite clear that county councillors and district councillors who were getting paid attendance allowances were running around from one governing body to the next and from one management committee to the next. It went on like that. I hope that that does not occur.
Lord BELLWIN: On the latter point, it is not all local education authorities who treat service on the governing body as a designated duty for the purpose of attendance allowances. But I do know, as the noble Lord says, that there are some who do. However, it does really not change anything. I hope that in the light of what has been said the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I found that it was rather difficult to follow some of the arguments advanced against this amendment. It does not say, or even suggest, that the governors have got to be members of the local education authority. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, aright, he argued that if this amendment were carried nobody would want to be a governor unless he were a member of the local education authority. If that was not what the noble Lord meant, he was certainly arguing that the result of this amendment would be that people would have to be governors of large numbers of schools. There is not the slightest necessity for that. The local education authority can choose people to be governors of schools without loading on to each one of them that they must be governors of more than one school, and experience shows that that is so.
A long time ago I was a manager (they are now called governors) appointed by the local education authority, but I was not—and had no intention of becoming—a member of the local education authority, and I was one of a very great many. I cannot at all accept the argument that this amendment is impracticable, because we are not suggesting that the governors appointed by the local education authority must be members of the authority. It does not at all follow, if our amendment were carried, that governors would have to be appointed to do the job in several schools. There is not the least reason why the local education authority should not—and they do—find suitable people to man all the places for which they have the right of nomination on governing bodies. I reject the suggestion that the amendment is impracticable.
Now what about the positive merits of the amendment? There is a very powerful reason in the eyes of the electors and the
592
parents; it is, in effect, that the local authority is responsible for what happens in the maintained schools. There are already some difficulties about that. When I was a Member of another place, I had parents coming to me complaining sometimes about the failure of their children to get admission to a particular school. I remember one case very well where, owing to failure of proper supervision, a boy had been killed at an athletic event. In fact, owing to the composition of the governing body, the local authority could not do anything about it, but nothing I could say could persuade the parents that the local authority was not responsible for their grievance. I do not think there is any way round this. In a maintained school, the electors, the parents, will hold the local education authority responsible. That is why we are arguing, either as Amendment No. 8 suggests, that its representatives should actually outnumber the rest, or the more modest proposal contained in Amendment No. 9, that they should form not less than half. It is a sound rule of government and democracy that power and responsibility should go together. Since the local authority is the body to be held responsible, it ought not to be in a position where it is invariably outnumbered on the governing body.
There is also this matter to consider. The local education authority is, beyond any doubt, democratically elected. We know very well that one of the problems we shall have in implementing clauses in this Bill about other kinds of governor is to make sure that their election can equally be called democratic. It is one thing to put in a Bill that there shall be parent governors and elaborate arrangements as to how they shall be chosen; it is another thing to be certain how many parents will turn up at the meeting to elect them. Indeed, I fear there is always one danger; the more complicated one makes the governing body the easier it is for people who have leisure and money. That is always something to be watched when we bring on to governing bodies of schools people who are not appointed by those, like the local council, who have gone through the proper process of democratic election. I am glad to see that the Bill is giving definite status to the position of governors other than those appointed by the local education authority, to parent

593
governors and possibly other governors as well. I am very glad that the local education authority which I know best—the ILEA—was a pioneer in introducing parent governors.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Oh, no!
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Well, I defer to my noble friend but I think he will agree that it was a near thing! However I believe that the responsibility lies with the local authority and that its representatives therefore ought not to be outnumbered. That is really what we are discussing in this amendment and we ought not to be put off by the suggestion that it is a necessary part of this amendment that one man or one woman should be a governor of 10 schools. There is not the least necessity for that; it is a complete red herring. Therefore I invite the Committee to consider what is really involved in this amendment: the real principle of democracy and the fact that the local authority, who in the end will have to carry the can, should not be outnumbered on the governing body.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: There is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said, as one would expect of someone with his great experience, but I think the case that he has so ably deployed is in fact a rather backward-looking one. There are enormous difficulties in producing a popularly controlled and democratically elected number of people to serve on these bodies, but we think that the forward way is the way which was recommended in the report of the Taylor Committee. We think that because it is quite clear that, over the last 10 or 20 years, citizens of this country—and not just of the middle classes—have been becoming more and more interested in having some real say in the institutions which govern their lives.
Nothing could really be very much more pertinent to that than the schools to which their children go. Therefore it is extremely important that the responsibility is spread, and the Taylor Committee said—and I quote:
" We have concluded that such a partnership is most likely to work effectively if each of the four main interest groups receives the same proportion of the places available on the governing body. We recommend therefore that as a matter of
594
principle the 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".
At this stage we have not sought to table amendments to amend the Bill in that direction. The reason for that is that these particular arguments were thoroughly thrashed out in another place, but we think that the Bill is gravely defective in not allowing for much wider representation on these groups, and for that reason we think the amendment before the committee at the moment is even worse.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I should like to make it clear that I do not understand the noble Lord's argument when he says that he is concerned that those democratically elected should be responsible but then proposes that a whole lot of people who have not been democratically elected should be the governors, having merely been nominated by those who are elected. I find that very difficult to understand. If his principle is right then inevitably it will fall on the members of the education committee or the education authority.
The other point I want to make is a simple one. If this Bill is to work and if governing bodies are to do the job we want them to do, the local authority must be clear that, having delegated power to a governing body to do certain things, it should leave it to do them without insisting that the local authority itself must control every detail of what happens in the school.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I should like to make it clear to my former friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, what we recommended. It is quite clear that he is wrong on this one about the election because what we said is this: There are the elected representatives from the local authority; there are the representatives elected by the parent body; there are the representatives elected by the teachers and the staff of the school. That is, three bodies out of the four are elected. Representatives of the community are difficult to elect because one wants to bring in people who are interested in that community. What is good for Yorkshire may not be good for Lancashire;

595
what is good for Lancashire may not be good for the ILEA, and so on. Therefore, if there is a good cross-section, they will decide. The idea was that in the first place the three bodies who were elected would meet together and then they would invite certain organisations to submit nominations. Then when they got the nominations they would in the course of time elect the fourth part of the governing body. Therefore, you will get an elected body in that way. I am sorry to waste your Lordships' time on this, but I thought it was worthwhile explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, what we had in mind.
5.10 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I have other amendments in this group. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and they shall constitute at least half of the total number of governors.")
The noble Lord said: The debate which has just taken place confirms my belief that the further I get away from education the better I will be pleased. I think my noble friend Lord Stewart made what were the essential points in this matter. Surely where the responsibility goes the power must go also. Amendment No. 9 is a much more modest attempt at trying to achieve that end. My noble friend said that parents in affluent areas have a great deal of power in these matters. If I may reminisce for a moment, when I arrived on the local authority it was not long before I discovered that if the public gallery was full you could hay': a bet—in fact a double—first that the issue they were concerned about was an educational issue, and, secondly, that they were from the more affluent parts of the city. There is no question whatever, if an educational issue of whatever kind takes place within a local authority area, it is certain that the issue will be highlighted and brought to the attention of the public.
What we are concerned with here is the smooth and democratic running of our schools. When I hear the comments of some noble Lords about scores of
596
elected representatives rushing round their local education areas, sitting on boards of governors and claiming attendance allowances, I wonder what local authorities they are involved in. It has certainly not been my experience. I think this is a relatively modest amendment which should pass scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: In fact I thought this was a rather surprising amendment. First, it is in direct conflict with an amendment tabled by the Labour Opposition in Committee in another place which sought to restrict local education authority appointees to no more than half the number of the governors. Secondly, it would in spirit run directly counter to the kind of experimentation in the composition of governing bodies which we are already seeing in Birmingham and other places, and which until now I had thought was welcomed by all parties. Thirdly, it would in practice be unworkable, because it would not be possible in the case of a voluntary aided school to fulfil both the requirements of the amendment and the requirement in subsection (4) that there should be a majority of foundation governors.
Our concern in determining the provisions of this clause has been to provide the maximum degree of local flexibility in the composition of school governing bodies. Subsection (2) does not require local education authorities to appoint a majority of governors for any school, and it may be that an increasing number will choose not to do so as they gain experience of the new kind of governing body which will be established by this Bill. As the Secretary of State made plain during the Second Reading debate, and as we had previously said in Committee on the 1978 Bill, we believe that it should be open to the local education authority which is responsible for the school to appoint a majority of the governors if that seems to them to be appropriate. It would, in our view, be wrong and against the interests of the efficient provision of education and the development of an effective role in that process, for the new governing bodies to deny local education authorities the right to appoint a majority if they so wish. But equally it would he wrong to compel them to appoint a larger proportion of the governing body than they might in some cases wish to do.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I make my position clear on this? I am sorry I cannot support my noble friend on this amendment, and therefore I will not go into the Division Lobby with him; neither will I support the Government.
Baroness DAVID: May I say one thing about governing bodies. I mentioned in my first amendment that if you have too many people, say half of them, not representative of the LEA you will have a lot of governors who do not know what the position is about finance and so on. They may well be passing resolutions, "We would like to have another language taught"; or "We would like to have the heating improved"; or "We would like to have new curtains". They may pass resolutions about any number of things which will be taken no heed of at all. The local authority representatives should know what the position is; they should be truly representative, but not necessarily members of the Education Committee or of the Council. I think there is a misunderstanding about who are representative and what representatives should do.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: As I listen, as an ex-headmaster, my blood runs a bit cold at all this talk about governing bodies and how they are constituted; but then it has been running pretty chilly since I read the Taylor Report. It bears so little relation to the way a school is actually run. The idea that governors will pass silly resolutions about an extra language being taught! Surely the headmaster or headmistress is there to tell them not to be so stupid because they cannot afford it. While we are talking about all these complicated arrangements about electing people who then elect other people, do let us remember that what goes on in a school—and the inspectors' reports show it—is determined more by the quality of the head teacher than anything else. Do not let us take this business of governors too seriously or we shall get our emphasis wrong.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should have thought that a governor appointed by the education authority was just as likely as anybody, if not more so, to pass these hostile resolutions she spoke of.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: After listening to the noble Lord, Lord James, I do suggest that there is a large educational world beyond his experience, perhaps a less happy educational world than the one he knows. We all know that headmasters can have a considerable influence. I remember once going to a meeting in the Palace of Westminster which was to be addressed by the headmaster of Eton. For some reason most of the people coming were a little late, and it was very interesting to notice how, even in late middle age, they were scurrying along the corridor at the thought of being late for a meeting addressed by a headmaster. In many State schools it really is not quite like that, and it is no good our discussing whether it ought to be. The governors, particularly when you go to all this trouble to appoint them, expect to have some influence about how the school is run.
It is to that problem, happily outside the experience of the noble Lord, Lord James, that we have now, whether we like it or not, to address ourselves. Since we are now dealing with a more modest amendment, that at any rate representatives of the local authority should not be in a minority, I believe the argument I was advancing earlier has considerable weight. It is to the local authority that people will turn, judging them to be ultimately responsible for the school. It is the members of the local authority, who will choose these governors, who will have run the real gauntlet of democratic election in which every citizen could vote. I have over the years welcomed the advance of the idea of governors other than those appointed by the local authority. But I do not believe that it is right to derogate from the real powers and responsibilities that ought to lie with those who have, in the end, been chosen by the electorate to be responsible for the education system. That is what is at stake in this amendment.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I do not know whether I am allowed to say another word, but if I am, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that in fact I have had experience as a governor of maintained schools and I was supporting him on this matter. He might not have believed it, but I was trying to emphasise that we must not go into all these tremendous elaborations

599
about governors, when really the people who are running the school are the local authority, under the headmaster.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I hope that I may be forgiven for not quite understanding that the noble Lord was supporting me. However, as it is the wish of my noble friends to press this amendment to a vote, we shall see for certain.
Lord BELLWINM: I gather from the last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that the amendment is to be pressed. However, I should like to point out as regards the last comments that have been made, that it is rather interesting that here we have on the one hand the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is quite clearly against the amendment and with us; then the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who stays strictly neutral and in the middle; and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, who take the entirely opposite point of view. Therefore, who
would want to say that there can, in fact, be only one way that is right?
I believe that the Government have it right because, all else apart, if we leave aside all the other philosophical points as to what governors should and should not do, the fact is, as I said in my opening remarks, that it would be unworkable in practice because it would not be possible in the case of a voluntary-aided school to fulfil both the requirements of the amendment and the requirement in subsection (4), that there should be a majority of foundation governors.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: In the light of all the possible permutations that the Minister has suggested might come about if we were to vote on the matter, I shall press my amendment.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 144.

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Parry, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Bowden, L.

Heycock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacobson, L.

Soper, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Denington, B.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McCarthy, L.]

Underhill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Barrington, V.

Chorley, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Alport, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Amory, V.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Craigton, L.

Armstrong, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Blake, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Avon, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Daventry, V.

Balerno, L.

Byers, L.

Davidson, V.

Balfour of Inchyre, L.

Caithness, E.

de Clifford,.

De Freyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Rochdale, V.

Derby, Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rochester, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Romney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dundonald, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Seear, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Energlyn, L.

Luke, L.

Simon, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mais, L.

Spens, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Minto, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Galloway, E.

Monson, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Morris, L.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Motistone, L.

Swaythling, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Gormanston, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teynham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Tranmire, L.

Grey, E.

Northchurch, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Trenchard, V.

Haig, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaizcy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ogmore, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Onslow, E.

Vickers, B.

Hatherton, L.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hylton, L.

Reigate, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 9 disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and governors appointed by any other local education authority if more than ten per cent. of the children at the school come from that authority's area.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not spend a great deal of time on this amendment. It was rather a puzzle to some of us that the provision contained in this amendment is not to be found in the original Bill. In my own area there are a number of examples of children from neighbouring local authorities attending our schools and, of course, vice versa. We are not suggesting for one moment that where there is a smattering of children from another local authority, there should be representation. However, the amendment I am moving suggests that if more than 10 per cent. of the children at a school come from another local authority, they should have representation on the governing body. I should have thought this a modest amendment and one to
602
which the Government could agree. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I understand the noble Lord's intentions in seeking to establish through the governing body a link between schools and the areas from which the children who attend them come, although I am bound to say that the force of this amendment contrasts very strongly with that of Amendment No. 13, which is down in the names of noble Lords opposite. However, I think that it would be wrong in principle to give one local education authority a statutory voice in the way another local education authority carried out its statutory responsibilities; each LEA must be responsible for its own schools. The formulation proposed by the noble Lords in their amendment is in any event unsatisfactory as the numbers attending a school from a neighbouring authority could vary on either side of 10 per cent., or any other figure for that matter, from year to year, leading to continual upheaval in the governing body of the school. I, too, do not have a great deal to say on this amendment, but I am sure that this is something we can and

603
should leave to the good sense of the authorities themselves.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to put a point to the Minister. In a very rural area a boy living in a remote farmhouse—either in Wales or on the edge of the Pennine Chain (and I know of both cases)—may he sent to a school which is only half a mile or a mile away in another area. On the other hand, if he is sent to a school which falls within his county or division, he may have to go three miles and be moved around. I know that the Government want to save money, but at the same time I hope they do not destroy the educational purpose of British education. Nevertheless, I hope that they will look at this amendment with favour because, although a school may be in another educational area, if a legitimate percentage of children from area X go to school in area Y, it would be worthwhile to have some kind of representation in area Y. I do not think that it would be a waste of time to offer that facility, because it could improve the amenities and the understanding in the area of those living just over the border.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment. I speak with experience of one who has been on the governing body of a school situated very close to a boundary. I can think of nothing in this amendment which would not lead to considerable friction between the two authorities, and I am sure that it would be wrong to make it part of law. Obviously, there will be consultations, and I have tabled a later amendment dealing with this. However, to have a compulsory requirement under the Bill would be wrong.
Baroness DAVID: One of the reasons for this amendment relates to points which will arise in later clauses in the Bill. If this Bill is passed, children will find it very much easier to get places in schools that are not in their own authority area. It was for that reason that we thought it right to table this amendment. After the Bill becomes law the situation will be very different from that which exists now.
Lord BELLWIN: I hardly think that the proposal would, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek:
604
"destroy the educational purpose of British education".
I think that even the noble Lord might concede that that was marginally over-presenting the situation. Of course, my noble friend Lord Ridley is quite right; the amendment would, indeed, cause great friction. I can well imagine the real resentment there would be if this was to come about. I believe that each local education authority must be responsible for its own schools. Although, as I said, I understand the intent, nevertheless in practical terms—in terms of what really happens, so to speak, on the ground—I do not think that we can accept this amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Does the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, wish to press his amendment?
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No.11:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and in the appointment of such governors regard shall be had to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture; and where appropriate community relations.").
The noble Lord said: Again, although I am disappointed with the Minister's reply with regard to Amendment No. 10, I should have thought that Amendment No. 11 should be included in the Bill anyway. The amendment simply says that the governor should have regard
" to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture; and where appropriate community relations".
There is no doubt that the Minister will probably say that local authorities will almost certainly take these groups into account when they set up their governing bodies. But there are some local authorities that would not take account of the interests of these groups, who are essential to the smooth running of governing bodies. I know that on my governing body of my comprehensive school we deliberately look for people

605
with special expertise who can help the governing body with their advice.
Particularly where you have a single industry, or a group of major industries within an area, it is helpful to the governing body to have assistance from that industry, to have representation from that industry, especially where you find the industry has provided generation after generation with employment in that particular area. Many of the children who go to comprehensive schools such as mine have had that experience. We feel that it is important, and we encourage bodies who can help our children by having them represented on the governing bodies. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support my noble friend on this question. It is vital that you get people who represent the community on governing bodies. For example, if you take Lancashire you get certain areas where you have the industrial community, and if you get a good industrialist on there then it is worth while because you get the connection with the industry in that area. If you are in a rural area where you have a strong agricultural connection, then you bring someone in from the agricultural community. These people can pass on advice to the staff of the schools for which the staff are crying out.
We find these days that so many people who are entering the teaching profession are going from school to college, college to university, university into teaching, and they are not getting the experience of industry and commerce, round about them. These people can give advice to the governing body as to what is going on in the community surrounding them. It is the same where you get a predominance of immigrant population where you can bring in one of the immigrant people to support and help you and give advice. This is important. I support my noble friend on this amendment.
Baroness SEEAR: We should like to support this amendment. We have an amendment down later which asks for much the same matters to be taken into account in a more specific way. But, on the belt and braces principle, we would none the less support this more general
606
amendment in the hope that we shall get support for our amendment later.
Baroness DENINGTON: I, too, would like to support this amendment. I think it may be much better in some areas, but in many areas, and in many areas in London where my experience is, there is a lamentable divorce between those who are concerned with industry and the secondary schools in the area. There has been some improvement, but so far as I can see it is minimal. I sat for a number of years on a Quango which has unhappily now been disbanded. It was the South East Economic Planning Council. This was a matter of continual concern to the industrialists on that council. They were eminent people; they were active. They were concerned with our national welfare, and they came back repeatedly to this particular subject, the divorce between our secondary schools and industry, for the very reason that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn has just given. Teachers go from school to training school or university and then back into school, and they therefore, naturally, can interest their pupils academically but cannot talk about the industrial world. They do not know the industrial world, and they do not go out into the industrial world and try to get the industrial world to liaise with the schools.
I have talked to industrialists. I have been to visit them in their factories. They are all too willing to show the children that it is not just a job on a bench, that there are progressive opportunities within their industries and there is a career structure that a child can follow, and things that they know nothing about at all in the schools. It is important in the interests of our nation that we have this close relationship between the schools and industry. It is not true in my experience that you get industrialists on the governing bodies. I have sat on governing bodies and they are not there. If we wrote this into the Bill, it could do nothing but good.
Viscount RIDLEY: I think we would all have a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the amendment. I certainly do, having been responsible for the appointment of such bodies, and anybody who can should try to get these people of experience in local industry involved. May

607
I ask the Minister whether such a clause is enforceable at law? It seems to me almost impossible to enforce.
Lord PARRY: The beauty of the amendment seems to me to be its appeal to the Government's well advertised magnanimity in this debate. They have the opportunity here to accept a view. The most serious criticism of the amendment is that it is a statement of intent, a direction, rather than something which the Government have thought to put in themselves. There is an opportunity for the Minister to accept this in view of the support that comes for the amendment from around the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, picked up a phrase of my noble friend as an example, as he thought, of tautology. I was interested that it coincided more with Ezra Pound's version of logopoeia, which was in fact a play on the meaning of words; the shade of the context. From the noble Lord we expect far more than the use of a word; we expect the context as well. From the Government we have the right to expect here far more than a play on words, and the simple acceptance that the Committee think that it is a good idea to have this amendment.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: On the question of enforceability, may I assure the noble Lord that it is common to have expressions of this kind in the qualifications expected for all sorts of boards and institutions governmentally appointed: persons experienced in industry, in commerce, the professions, or such like.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: As for the sentiments, there is no difference at all between us. Indeed, during the debate in Committee in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made it clear that we wholly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, in the Bill before this House we are seeking to leave the maximum flexibility in the hands of local education authorities. I have no doubt that the right of appointment should rest with them, and I think we can safely leave it to authorities in making appointments under either subsection (2) or subsection (10) of
608
Clause 2 to ensure that membership of governing bodies adequately and appropriately reflects local circumstances and needs.
While it is true in my exprience that the extent of appointments of such categories of people as are referred to in the amendment has certainly not hitherto been as extensive as one would like to see it, it would not be correct to say that one has not seen such appointments made. Quite the contrary. If it could be that this debate today and any publicity from it would highlight this to those who might offer themselves, then it might be a contribution which we should all like to see. But in terms of the amendment I would have to ask your Lordships' Committee not to accept it, while sympathising with the sentiments behind it, on the basis that we have to have confidence and leave flexibility to the authorities themselves.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: If the Minister hopes that the debate and the fact that this amendment has been put forward will encourage such people to come forward and encourage people to appoint them, how much more so would that be the case if this were written into the Bill? I am not entirely happy with the wording of the amendment—it is not just the needs of industry and agriculture, although, of course, it includes those—because it concerns the needs of the children to know about these things, and perhaps at a later stage we could have another look at the wording. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment and the Minister has not answered it. "Maximum flexibility "would in no way be impaired by acceptance of the amendment; nor can we leave it to the local authorities, as anyone who looks round some of the local authorities and their appointments will be aware. I therefore hope the amendment will be pressed to a Division.
Baroness DENINGTON: The Minister said that, if this debate got publicity, it might encourage people from industry to come forward. Is it not a fact—we must recognise facts and to me, from my experience, it is a fact—that they would have to come forward through the party political machine? I believe that is so generally throughout the country. The people of whom I am thinking are not

609
concerned in any way with the party political machine; they are the people whose services the nation needs, and I urge noble Lords opposite to recognise that. We should all be at one on this. I believe we are at one, and I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I support the amendment. For about five years, some years ago I was a governor of a boys' comprehensive school and this subject was one of those I thought terribly important. Occasionally they allowed boys to spend a day or half a day a week visiting a factory or some other institution. I really cannot understand why the Government are opposing the amendment. It is what we need at this time in this country; all our troubles would be lessened if we had one or two generations of boys who had experience in this way. Spending a day or half a day at a factory is nothing. We want to expand this idea and I therefore support the amendment not 100 per cent. but 200 per cent.
Lord HEYCOCK: As chairman of an education committee for about 30 years, I cannot see anything fundamentally wrong with the amendment. There is a tendency on the part of governors to restrict the constitutional governors appointed to local education authorities so that they are not broad-based enough to help boys and girls at that stage. However, I wish to refute one statement; boys and girls in secondary schools do visit industry; they have careers officers to assist them and the teachers are not simply academic. In many cases, they have experience of the outside world. In my view the inclusion of the amendment would assist local authorities to broaden the base about which I have spoken. After all, we are entering a changed pattern of society. The technology of our future generations is bound to have an impact on the social community and its economic input, and it is therefore desirable to broaden the base of governors in that sense. I know from experience that these people tend to be inbred, so to speak, to want to retain their own function. Speaking from long experience of these matters—chairman of six governing bodies, chairman of an education committee for many years and having had long experience of applying articles of management and articles of governors—I am certain
610
that the amendment would do nothing but good in relation to the constitution of governors.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The Government arc being implored in all quarters of the Committee to accept the amendment, and I really feel they should. On the question of enforceability, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger pointed out that it has been considered for a long time to he useful to put, what I would call, clauses of exhortation into a Bill; they are a reminder. It might happen that a local authority behaved in a slovenly fashion over its appointment of governors and paid no attention to the kind of thing mentioned in this proposal. If, on the other hand, the amendment were in the Bill, the Secretary of State would then have a solid ground on which to tell them to think again. Without this provision, he could not do that, and it is a well-known principle of law that if there is in a statute something which advises against a particular abuse, it is likely to raise the general standard of behaviour. Not many local authorities would ignore all these things, but the fact that if one of them did the Secretary of State could act would, I think, act as a general stimulus to them.
The argument has been used, "We want to give as much freedom as possible to local authorities". But do the Government really want to give local authorities freedom to ignore in the appointment of governors the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce, agriculture and, where appropriate, community relations? I do not believe the Government can want to say, "We want local authorities to he free to ignore all those considerations". That is really what they will be saying if they reject the amendment. I have seen ministerial briefs for dealing with amendments, line after line, lines of notes, and notes on an amendment handed to a Minister usually begin with the word "resist "underlined. I implore the Minister on this occasion to be a devil, throw it out of the window and accede to what is clearly the wish of all parts of the Committee.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: I wish to add my voice in support of the amendment, and particularly the part

611
which refers to community relations. Noble Lords who come from large urban areas containing large numbers of people from many parts of the world know that those people feel deprived on some occasions because they feel they are not drawn into what we call the "goings on "in the area. Nothing but good could come from stating categorically that this is a representation which is vital, especially in large urban areas like Bradford, London, Birmingham and Manchester where there is a concentration of various ethnic groups. While I will not reiterate what my noble friends have said on other topics, I feel strongly that appropriate representation of community relations is vital in our inner cities.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: It is clear that a large number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment. Many of us have tried to say what good it would do. May I ask the Minister to say what harm it would do?
Viscount ECCLES: I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. It is a fact that some local authorities, especially when expenses were paid to governors, tended to fill governorships with their own nominees without thinking enough about the interests of the neighbourhood. It is that we no doubt want to get rid of and I am certain that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench are as keen as any noble Lord opposite that the interests of industry or agriculture, for example, should be represented. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was right when he said that the wording of the amendment was not quite what one would like to see. I therefore wonder whether my noble friend could look at the matter and perhaps reintroduce the amendment in a way which made the case for the children, because after all that is what we are after. This is something that has happened recently and the need to unify the community and its interests is much clearer to everybody today than it was five or 10 years ago, and I think this would be a step in the right direction.
6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I intervene in this debate because I should like to make a
612
quite different point from any which has been made. The entire discussion on this amendment has centred on representative governors. The amendment talks about governors who would have regard to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture and where appropriate community relations; but it is a rather similar amendment to Amendment No. 29, and the sequence which follows on that is rather more prescriptive. What the House has great sympathy with—the Government certainly do—is that the relationship between education and industry should be improved. I should like to stress that this is not going to happen simply through representative governors on school governing bodies.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to our very important consultative document, which we have just published, on a framework for the curriculum, in which the point is made that the school curriculum should look to the importance of stressing to children the need to understand industry and the wealth-creating factors in our society. This would apply to industry, to commerce, or to agriculture, dependent upon where the school is. Furthermore, we are very actively looking at the whole question in that connection of careers officers. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, who made a very important point about this, because encouraging children either to have work experience courses or to go out and see the industries in their neighbourhood is not, on the whole, going to be done by school governors but by careers officers, by the attitude of the staff in the school. This is very important. I make these points because the suggestion seems to be implied that if you do not have a school governor who is representative of industry or of agriculture or of commerce, somehow this will be forgotten in the school curriculum. This is not the case.
Baroness SEEAR: Nobody is suggesting that the governors will do it all by themselves, but if these people are on the governing body it prompts the work of the professionals who have to carry it out. It is a partnership between the two. It cannot do anything but strengthen the hands of the people who have to carry it out if those interests are also on the governing body.
Lord PARRY: To prevent the noble Baroness having to speak twice, could I make two points? We are not talking about curriculum content at all. Curriculum content is a very different subject and one which will occupy us considerably in the course of this debate. We arc talking about involvement within the community and the representation of the school, a point which the noble Baroness gladly accepted earlier this afternoon in respect of the primary schools. Having made that point, it is essential that it should he pointed out that Amendment No. 29 does not bear any relationship whatever to this amendment. The amendment, as stated, deals with community orientation. In making those two corrective points, I do not want to lose the Minister's sympathy. I want to bind it tight with this amendment. It would be a pity if, in seeking to find a reason for what is quite clearly an intention, she were to lose touch with the real feeling of the Committee on all sides that we should make a statement within the Act which will lead to a better representation on the community base of the school.
Lord HEYCOCK: We are concerned mainly with the constitution of the governors. The curriculum is a matter which does not enter into it at this stage. We are trying to broaden the base of the governors so that there is personal contact with industry. Curricula are taught by the teachers. I say this with respect. There is too much interference with the curricula and too much expert advice about what should be taught in the school without realising significantly what is taught in the school. Experts from the Department of Education and Science may visit a school twice and suddenly make up their minds that there must be a change in the curriculum. We are not talking about curricula but about the constitution of the governors. Is the future constitution of governors to be along certain lines? They should represent industry, agriculture and commerce. We should confine ourselves to that. If the government are concerned, as I said earlier, about relating to industry I do not see how they can object very seriously to this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord who said that sometimes we are concerned mainly to retain power. This amendment broadens the base of future governing bodies.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACK BURN: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is referring just to the DES or to the Welsh Office as well?
Lord HEYCOCK: They know me in Cardiff. There is no need to refer to them because they have knowledge of me over the years.
Lord MISHCON: I sympathise with the poor Minister who has now had about five interventions in the midst of a speech which I am sure she meant to be helpful but which, so far, has not been. I want to make two points to her most respectfully. The first one is a very blunt point. I speak with some knowledge having been for over 20 years associated with the governorships of comprehensive schools in the London area. If there is any complaint at all by people who are parents in a school, it is that—and I am using the word advisedly and I may be attacked for it—political hacks are too often put on governing bodies with political parties actually calling for volunteers in their midst who would want to sit as governors of schools and say they are governors. When we are looking at a new Education Bill, it is time that we gave some guidance. We are asking for no more in this connection. That is item number one.
Item number two, to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention, is this. So often I have found a principal of a school, who is immersed, and delightfully so, in academic matters and in specialist matters relating to teaching, looking for guidance in her governing body, not in regard to curriculum, but in regard to matters which are going to help the children when they leave school. So often at governors' meetings, I have found a principal looking in vain for such guidance among the managers, as we used to know them, of some schools and the governors of others.
This is a great opportunity to give guidance. It is not mandatory. It is to give guidance and I would have thought, with respect, that the Minister would have welcomed this opportunity to do something about our governing bodies and to do it in a positive way instead of weakly hoping—I do not mean that offensively and she knows that—that some words spoken in this debate and possibly recorded somewhere will be remembered by local

615
authorities in the future when they come to appoint governors in their schools.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Might I ask the noble Ministers, who I know are loaded with questions, to remember my simple question. What harm would it do if this amendment were accepted?
Baroness PHILLIPS: I wish that the noble Lords who keep intervening in this debate would not constantly refer to broad-based governors. I have been a governor for some time and I am getting broader H the base all the time!
Baroness YOUNG: About 14 speeches ago I was last on my feet arguing a point. I will try to pick up where I left off. I am perfectly well aware that this section of the Bill does not deal with the school curriculum. I made the point because it is the other half of the argument and we ought not to lose sight of what is going on and what the staff of the school could do. I make it because I do not recognise that this section of the Bill is concerned with school governors.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was going to tell me, now that I am a grandmother, to suck eggs, but he did not. He avoided that, just. I think his words were that we should avoid too many political hacks. I am wondering how he thinks this amendment would prevent us falling into this trap. In order to find governors for governing bodies, people we would all like to see, able people serving on school governing bodies who have knowledge in this particular way, a local authority would need a list of people. In fact, local authorities are going to have to look for extra governors if they are going to have governors of every secondary and every primary school. They are going to have to extend the net very much wider than they do, and they are going to have to make the appointments. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, has said, this is all a political fix anyway, it will not really matter whether this is in or not; it will remain a political fix. But if, as we would like to feel, we are in fact widening the net this amendment will not enable us to do it at all.
616
My answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is that as with many of these things I do not think it would make a great deal of difference one way or the other about this matter. The fact is that if it was read by local education authorities as being prescriptive we should end up by having very big governing bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has just moved an amendment to have the majority of governors local education authority representatives. We have all agreed that there should be two teachers and two parents, so we have already got to nine governors at the minimum. There would then be the head teacher, which would bring the number to 10. There would have to be another LEA representative; that is 11—perhaps I might finish this argument; I have given way before. By the time one had a representative of industry and commerce or agriculture, higher and further education and a majority of local education authority governors, there would be a very big governing body.
On the final point about community relations, where there is a school in which the catchment area has quite a number of representatives of the ethnic minorities I would hope that they would come on as parent governors. I would welcome that as very much of a strengthening of governing bodies.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: The noble Baroness has already given away the point that I wanted to make, which is that representatives of industry and so forth are not necessarily additional. Local authority representatives and teacher and parent representatives would surely include son-le people who had that kind of experience. They should be so elected.
Baroness YOUNG: If that is the case, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. What we are arguing for, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin made perfectly clear in his remarks, is the least prescription and the maximum flexibility. What noble Lords opposite are arguing, for is a much more prescriptive form of governing body in which there would be less flexibility and in which local authorities would be bound to find these suitable representatives for every single school.
Baroness DAVID: We are not asking for every governing body to have all these people. It depends on the area. In some areas there would be one and in other areas another. As my noble friend has said, the representatives from the local authority can provide some of the places for these people.
Lord PARRY: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, offered some while ago what seemed to be a perfectly acceptable solution. The Minister agrees with us and has said so, and the only support she quotes in disagreement is from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who sits beside her. The feeling of the House is totally with her, and surely we should accept the former Minister of Education's suggestion that the Government look at the wording.
Lord BELLWIN: I do not think I can let that go out. The fact is that it all boils down to, "Yes, there is the agreement of everyone that the sentiments behind this amendment are what we want to see happen". We are disagreeing on how it should happen and what effect the amendment might have to ensure that it did happen. That is the issue. One may always be able to pick out the odd situation where it would not be so, but in the main the Government are very anxious to leave it to the good sense and responsibility of the local authority. We must stand on that in regard to this amendment.
Viscount SIMON: The noble Baroness said that we were adding prescription. Surely when one asks people to have regard to something one is not prescribing anything but merely reminding them of something they should do.
Lord HEYCOCK: The noble Baroness has said that there is not much difference between us. If that is the case, why can she not agree? We are asking the local education authorities to broaden their base. In the area I come from it does not necessarily mean there would be a representative of agriculture. If one lives in a rural area, one would have a representative of agriculture. The normal size of a governing body is about 18, and I am pretty certain that within the confines of that 18 one can find sufficient representation. This is not really prescribing anything. We are really saying to the local education authorities, "For goodness
618
sake, in the changing pattern of our society, please broaden the base of your governing body and bring on to it experience outside sheer local government administration". If, as the Minister says, there is not much difference between us, I cannot understand why she does not concede the point.
Baroness DAVID: Does the Minister agree with her noble friend that she ought to take this amendment back and bring it forward again better worded? I admit it is not perfect. If she would take it back and give us an assurance that such an amendment will come before us at Report stage, we will not press this amendment now. But if we do not have that assurance we shall certainly press the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I entirely understand the view of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is her view that this amendment should be made, and if she takes that view she must press it. Perhaps I used—I accept the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon —the wrong word when I said that the amendment was prescriptive. At the risk of repetition, I would say again what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said—that, in relation to school governors, everybody has ideas as to who would be the right sort of representative person to have on a governing body. It is perfectly clear from the later amendments that there are all sorts of other ideas, including having a pupil on the governing body.
In the case of head teachers, quite rightly it is to be left to them whether or not they would like to be on governing bodies. There is also the question of non-teaching staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has put down an amendment about a representative of industry and a representative of the trade unions. There is a long list of people. The further we go down this path the more we are saying to local education authorities, "You must take account of all these factors in your deliberations". I believe that local education authorities will look outside the narrow confines of their own members. I do not think that they will need the reminder that is being suggested in this Bill, which I believe will affect the relationship between central and local government at a time when we are very anxious to give local government the maximum flexibility on these matters. I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not want to tell the Opposition how to do their job. They are particularly active at the moment. I should have thought that if the substance behind this amendment is something that they really want to push at the end of the day, they ought not to be poaching on this particular amendment but ought to wait until we get to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, in which they specifically outline what in this amendment is a general sort of suggestion as to what governors or councils might keep in their minds. They have on the record how they feel about this question, and they have from my noble friend, and from my other noble friend Lord Eccles, who is experienced in these matters, much sympathy for the general proposition—
Baroness DAVID: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that she and her colleagues would not press their amendment to our Amendment No. 26, if we were to press ours; that they accepted ours, rather than theirs.
Baroness SEEAR: If the noble Baroness, Lady David, looks at Hansard tomorrow morning, she will find that I did not say that. I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not understand the phrase "belt and braces". That phrase, if I may tell the noble Baroness, means that you have two safeguards against disaster.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Baroness and I are very much in line on this matter. There are on the Marshalled List two proposals directed to my noble friend as to how the Bill can be improved. One is the amendment now being discussed, which adds up to nothing; it is only words and general advice. The other amendment means the same thing, but says it rather specifically. The noble Baroness tried to frighten my noble friend a little by saying that she might press the matter to a vote. Why anyone should ever be afraid of a decision going to a vote I do not know. If one is to use the weapon of a vote eventually in order to get points made, the time to vote is when we come to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, not now on this amendment. The point has been made now. It is terribly pompous of me to tell any-
620
body how to deal with this matter, but I bet that the noble Baroness's noble friend sitting beside her agrees with what I am saying. He has a vast experience in this field, and he knows that the words that one should insert in a Bill are those words which will mean something, rather than words which merely express a general idea without any force behind them. I say to noble Lords opposite: if you want to have an effect on the Bill, do not waste your vote on this amendment. You have made your point; use your vote when we get to Amendment No. 26 or 27.
My noble friend mentioned Amendment No. 27 in passing. That is what drew my attention to it. I wonder whether she can give any indication of how she is likely to react to Amendment No. 27. If my noble friend is in the position that when we get to Amendment No. 27 she may be able to go partly along the road which noble Lords are suggesting, that may prevent the vote that is being threatened now. I would not vote on this amendment. I would hold my fire and, if necessary, vote on Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Since the noble Lord has referred to me so definitely, I think that I should reply. I have indeed long experience of debating with him, and it has taught me that he is almost invariably wrong, as indeed he is in this instance. One of the grumbles from the Government about our amendment is that it is too prescriptive, though the noble Baroness admitted that "prescribe "is too strong a word. But Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are rather more prescriptive; they would arouse greater hostility from the Government. When the noble Lord speaks of our wasting our vote on this amendment, does he imagine that we come here with only a certain number of votes available? If the noble Lord really prefers Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, I trust that if we are defeated, and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches press their proposal to a vote, we shall then see the noble Lord putting his feet where his mouth is.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 122.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Heycock, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hood, V.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Bowden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brimelow, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa,L.

Jeger, B.

Strabogli, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strrauss, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swaythling, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Denington, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Neol-Baker, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Peart, L..

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Glendevon, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Alport, L.

Gormanston, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Haig, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reigate, L.

Bellwin, L.

Renton, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampden, V.

Ridley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blake, L.

Hatherton, L.

Romney, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Henley, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Savile, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Spens, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Stradbroke, E.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Strathspey, L.

Derby, Bp.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Digby, L.

Luke, L.

Suffield, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundonald, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mais, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Exeter, Bp.

Monson, L.

Vaizey, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L,

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Moyne, L.

Westbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Wynford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 11A not moved.]
6.33 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend is not here and I was not expecting to move this amendment, which is to leave out subsection (3). This is a probing amendment, and the point of it is that we want to find out the attitude of the Government to the minor authority representation. The Taylor Report did not favour having minor authority representation, but this clause says that there shall be at least one governor appointed by that authority. What I think we want to know is: What do the Government mean by "minor authority"? It can be a parish meeting, a parish council or a district council; there can be all manner of minor authorities. What we want to know is exactly what they have in mind, and whether they think there should be more than one governor if there are several minor authorities represented. This is almost inevitable where you have a secondary school in the country, for there are going to be a great many parish councils involved, or a district council involved. So what we should like is enlightenment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The Taylor Report recommended that the right of minor authorities to representation on the governing bodies of primary schools in their area should be discontinued. However, this was in the context of their more general recommendations concerning the composition of governing bodies, and they went on to reaffirm the value of members drawn from such authorities. Reactions to the Taylor Report showed that the links between primary schools and their communities are often much valued, and the last Government's Bill recognised this by retaining a right of appointment for minor authorities. Our approach to the composition of governing bodies differs markedly both from that recommended by Taylor and from that of the last Government, but we share that Government's views concerning the value of minor authority involvement in primary school governing bodies. It is for this reason that we have continued their existing right of representation, although in a form more in keeping
624
with the flexible approach to the composition of governing bodies which is embodied in Clause 2 as a whole. I must stress that the provision made in subsection (3) is for a minimum level of representation. Where it is considered appropriate and desirable locally, representation can, and I am sure will, be larger. As for the definition of a minor authority in this context, I think one would have to say a parish council, certainly, and not totally exclude but not automatically include a district council.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope the Government will leave this provision in the Bill. I think the link between a primary school and the parish council (where there is a parish council) has proved extremely valuable, and I think it would cause a great deal of unhappiness in the rural community if this link were to be compulsorily discontinued. There are, of course, other arguments to be advanced when we are talking about a district council, which may or may not be a very large authority; and it is not necessarily a minor one, either. But where we have a parish council—and we do over most of England and Wales; or England, anyway—then I think we should try to keep this link between the primary school and the parish council if it is at all possible.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the view which has just been expressed by the noble Viscount. I think it would be very unfortunate not to have representation of the parish council if it can possibly be arranged.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Minister bracketed together parish councils and district councils. Surely that is a mistake. A parish council is a small entity which we can all visualise, but there are district councils in the country which cover nearly 100,000 inhabitants. Surely those two cannot be treated in the same way. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to clarify the situation.
Lord MORRIS: The noble Baroness may find it helpful if I say that in the supplementary note to Clause 2 in these very helpful Notes on Clauses which the Government have issued, copies of which noble Lords will find in the Printed Paper Office, there is a very clear definition of what the Bill means by a

625
"minor authority". Noble Lords will find it on page 5.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I am sorry I was out of the Chamber at the beginning of this debate but, as the noble Minister has quoted my committee on this, may I tell him and the Committee that the situation was that my committee was very much divided about this matter. They had mixed views and reservations about whether there should or should not be such representation. Therefore, being a very good democrat and being the chairman of the committee, I asked them to express a majority vote, and they expressed a majority vote in the way that the recommendation indicates. Nevertheless, I feel that the amendment which is laid before your Lordships—and I hope the Minister will accept this, because I think it is something which should be gone into very carefully—will certainly help us a great deal if the Minister will accept it.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps I may first, in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, give in detail the definition of a minor authority. It is:
."!where the area served by the school is a parish or community, the parish or community council; if the parish has no council then the minor authority is the parish meeting. If the area is a community having no council or is an area in England not in a parish or metropolitan county, then the district council is the minor authority. If the school serves the area of more than one minor authority then they act jointly for the purposes of appointing school governors. By virtue of Section 31(10) of the London Government Act 1963, in the area served by the ILEA the councils of the inner London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London are minor authorities.".
Otherwise, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ridley and to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for their endorsement of the Government's position on this. I feel this is something desirable; but I think the amendment is one that we could not accept. It seems to me that the noble Baroness may feel that this is one that she might wish to withdraw.
Lord UNDERHILL: Although accepting the explanation of the noble Lord, could he explain the reason why a district council, which is a non-metropolitan district, should be excluded? In the "mets" we are all right; they are educational authorities. While appreciating why the parish councils, because of their
626
local contact, should be represented, why should the district council, a very important unit, be excluded? What is the reason?
Lord BELLWIN: The district council is not necessarily excluded. It is prescriptive in this sense. It is a question of the definition and in what circumstances it would fill the role of a minor authority. I thought that the definition that I read out made the point of the circumstances in which it would do so; but, by itself, this amendment and this part of the Bill is referring to the minor authority as such. I respectfully submit that that is what we must content ourselves with at this moment.
Baroness DAVID: I said that this was a probing amendment and I shall withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12A, 13, and 14 not moved.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and the number of governors appointed by the local education authority shall be greater than the number of foundation governors.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to give the governing bodies of a controlled school the same sort of rights as those of the governing body of an aided school. By Clause 2(4)(b), the foundation governors outnumber the other members of the governing body and have the majority. The point of this amendment is that the number of governors appointed by the local education authority shall be greater than the number of foundation governors in the case of a controlled school. I think it is straightforward. It puts the two on a par.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment seeks to ensure that the local education authority responsible for the maintenance of a controlled school shall always have a stronger voice on the governing body of that school than the foundation governors. I think it is unnecessary, however, because the making of Instruments for voluntary schools is a matter for the Secretary of State, who, by virtue of Section 17(4) of the 1944 Act, must consult with the local

627
education authority and others concerned before making Instruments. It is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would seek to limit the local education authority. I think this is another instance level of foundation representation without the full agreement of all concerned. On the other hand, he would not wish statutorily to preclude the possibility if, in the light of local circumstances, there was a genuine wish on the part of all concerned for the foundation representation to be greater than that of the local education authority. I think this is another instance where we could leave it to the good sense of the local education authority.
Baroness DAVID: With that explanation, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, it may be to your Lordships' advantage to consider also Amendment No. 20 which is purely consequential and, possibly, Amendment No. 23, because the principle is the same. I will not burden your Lordships with a long explanation. We all know the arguments in favour of more parent governors. I must confess that I am not entirely clear on what are the arguments against them; but the arguments for them have been well rehearsed, not least in the report of the Taylor Committee. We on these Benches, both here and in another place, would like to have seen greater representation. In seeking to raise this matter in this Committee, I have had regard to the fact that I thought it was in accordance with our traditions that we did not bring forward matters which had been decided in another place on a vote. This amendment, I think, falls into that category. As a result, I suppose, it falls into the category of perhaps asking for too little; because we are now a little despondent about getting the kind of representation that we should like to see on governing bodies.
There is one specific point that I should like to make in favour of the appointment of two parent governors where, anyway, there was going to be one. It is that if you have someone else who has the same interest as you—and I use the word in its more technical sense—it is much easier to get things done and to try to push things forward. I am sure it will be said by some Members of this Committee that we do not want to have people voting in categories; that would be disastrous if we had the parent governors against the teacher governors and against the local education authority governors. I agree entirely; but none the less, I do not think that that is an argument against having a minimum of two where there are definite categories. No one can deny that the category of a parent governor is a special category representing, in a way, a special, interest and we hope, in the future, even to be elected by them.
I suppose that it is an argument which comes particularly deep from the hearts of Members of this Committee on these Benches because the Liberal Party, over a period of time in the past when it was a lot less strong in the country than it is now, suffered time and again from the situation of having only one representative on a local authority and from the difficulty that that caused. If you are to have representation at all, there is something to be said for having representation of sufficient size. I think that means, too, that there can be mutual support within the representation. The Government have given way on the point of specific representation. Parent governors are written into this Bill. When I say, "given way ", I am not implying that they did so in any way unwillingly. I think it right that they did it. But it is not open to them to argue that there cannot be specialist categories of governors. We have them. What we want to decide now is the best number in any particular category. There is a considerable case for saying that two people would be twice as effective as one.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is asking for two parent governors in voluntary aided schools. Subsection (5) of the Bill provides, as in the case of county schools, that only one of these parents needs to be elected from the body of the parents. The noble Lord

629
will see that subsection 4(b) provides that one of the foundation governors must be a parent. In this way we are setting the minimum requirement of two parents, as in the case of county schools. Therefore, we support the noble Lord's argument, and hope he will agree that his amendment is unnecessary as the point is already met.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I accept what the Minister says. I had a feeling when drafting the amendment that I did not fully understand the clause. However, I hope that the Committee will have some sympathy with me. I am delighted that the Government have covered the point in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
6.50 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("at the time of his appointment").
The noble Baroness said: The point of this amendment is that a parent governor must continue to be the parent of a child at the school. A parent could be appointed, the child might leave the school, and one would then lose the representation on that governing body of a parent with a child at the school. We wish to ensure that whoever is the parent governor should remain a parent governor at that school but that, if the child leaves, the parent will have to go off the school body.
Baroness YOUNG: This amendment seeks to strengthen the point made by Lord Beaumont on Amendment No. 17. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will accept that the Bill, as drafted, ensures that there will be two parent governors in voluntary aided schools. What she is saying is that the parent governor appointed by the foundation should be able to serve beyond the moment at which his child has left the school, but that the length of time beyond which the parent should serve would be limited.
As the instrument of government for each voluntary school is made by the Secretary of State, and as we accept this
630
principle, the Committee can take it that the Secretary of State would not approve of a parent governor staying on for any length of time after the child had left the school.
If we were to accept this amendment, it would mean that at the very moment when the child left the school the parent governor would have to resign abruptly and somebody would have to be found to fill the vacancy. However, as I said earlier, the point is met in the Bill.
Baroness DAVID: How long after the child has left will that governor remain in the job?
Baroness YOUNG: We intend to see that it will be a short period of time. However, if we were to accept the amendment as drafted, it would mean that a parent with more than one child in the school would have to cease to be a governor not more than 12 months after the eldest child left the school, notwithstanding the fact that one or more children were still in the school. Therefore, the amendment as worded would not have the desired effect.
I take the point that it would be wrong for a parent to continue to be a parent representative long after the child had left the school. But since we are agreed on the importance of having two parents and do not wish to make the process automatic on the child's leaving the school, I believe that it can be left to the Secretary of State to ensure that the principle will be adhered to and the gap will not be too long.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I follow a great deal of the Minister's remarks, but I am puzzled about one matter. I can see the Secretary of State approving the instrument of government, but I cannot see him scrutinising the list of governors in each school and being aware that the child of one of them had left that school six or 12 months earlier. Will it be possible for the Secretary of State by his own action to determine that a governor does not go on being a governor long after his child has left the school? The Minister asks my noble friend Lady David not to press the amendment, on the ground that the Secretary of State will take care of the

631
matter, but can the Secretary of State possibly exercise that degree of scrutiny?
Baroness YOUNG: It would not be done by identifying the particular parent. It would be undertaken through the instruments of government which would lay down the period of time.
Lord UNDERHILL: Although I accept the Minister's point that the Secretary of State may carry out this function, we should be careful to put something into the Bill now. I do not see why we cannot delete this phrase. We have had experience of other people being summarily left off boards of governors. My wife was a councillor and a member of a board of governors. The moment she lost her seat, the Conservative majority dropped her off the board of governors, and she was summarily dismissed. We are trying to ensure that the person concerned is a parent of a child at the school. It seems sensible for the Government to accept our argument, because the Minister already admits that the Secretary of State will adjust the matter in an instrument.
Baroness YOUNG: I should make clear that in the case of voluntary schools, the Secretary of State makes the instrument. He can lay down the period of time. We are arguing a narrow point on which in principle we are agreed. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her setting out how this matter will work.
Lord HEYCOCK: Surely the Government must lay down the principles on which these boards of governors operate. Will it not be the case that administrative officers will make the Secretary of State aware of the fact that, in accordance with the articles of government, the person concerned has exceeded the time in which he or she may be eligible to be a member of the governing body? The Secretary of State will not have the opportunity of scrutinising these matters throughout the country, but surely the appropriate administrative officers will draw the Minister's attention to that fact.
Baroness YOUNG: The way in which it will work is that the Secretary of State will make instruments of government for voluntary schools. We are committed to the principle of two parents on these
632
boards. The Secretary of State will then write in how this will apply, and he will recognise the point made by Lady David covering what happens when a foundation governor's child leaves the school and whether the foundation governor will be expected to resign at that point—in other words whether there will be a gap. There could be a small gap. If the governors are not keeping to the instrument, they are not operating within the legal framework of the voluntary aided schools, so they could not operate in this way. There could rightly be objections.
I think that we are agreed in principle. It is a narrow, technical point and, if it will be helpful to the noble Baroness, I will write to her before Report stage saying precisely how it will work out.
Baroness DAVID: With the Minister's offer, I will agree to withdraw the amendment now, and if I am not satisfied with her letter I shall have a chance to come back on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether this is a convenient moment, as we have just completed this amendment, to adjourn the Committee stage of the Education Bill for one hour.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Perhaps the Committee will take notice of the fact that I said "Not moved "before the noble Baroness spoke, so that I do not have to come back quite so soon after dinner.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn for five minutes during pleasure. We will reconvene again to take the National Heritage Bill.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[House adjourned during pleasure from 7.1 p.m. to 7.6 p.m.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
7.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): My Lords, I have to advise the House that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 2.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("which") in line 8 and insert ("There shall be a fund known as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, hereinafter referred to as "the Heritage Fund ", to be a memorial to those who have died for the United Kingdom, established in succession to the National Land Fund,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage we had a very interesting, if slightly rambling, discussion on the name of the fund and the title of the Bill. I gave the matter some consideration, and it seemed to me that the amendment which I have here drafted might meet all points of view that were expressed. It would bring into the Bill the words "National "and "Memorial". At the same time it solves the practical problem of what it is called in ordinary life, so to speak, by referring to it as the Heritage Fund. Also, the last two lines of my amendment express something of the original purpose which it was emphasised lay behind this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am very glad to be speaking after my noble friend Lord Reigate has opened the "batting "today. Also I should like—and I do not think that we have done so on this Bill so far—to acknowledge that I am very glad that the noble Lord has been able to be here on Committee and Report, because he was one of the first to be interested in this field. I am very pleased although sometimes his knife gets sharp and my back is too close and I get frightened. Nevertheless, I am happy to see the noble Lord.
We had a long discussion, as the noble Lord said, and I said in Committee that the Government were willing to take the
634
views of the House on this matter. That still remains the attitude of the Government; the Government are totally neutral on this point. Speaking purely for myself, I agree totally with my noble friend that this amendment seems to meet the various conflicting arguments which were put forward. I for one would support him.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of this Report stage. I should very much like to support the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. It is rather similar to the one that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and myself put down in Committee but it is rather tighter and neater. It seems to cover various points made in Committee. The important aspect is that it explains what it is a memorial for. It is practical enough to realise that when it comes to working the fund one is not going to be able to use this Long Title all the time. It seems to me to be admirable and, in view of what the Minister has said, I hope that we are going to have a happy concensus on this and that this amendment will be part of what I hope will soon be a statute.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I, too, in the briefest possible way, should also like to express my support. I think the amendment meets in an admirable fashion all the points that were put from various parts of your Lordships' House during our last debate. I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has received it in such an amiable and kindly fashion; indeed he dealt with this in a very kindly manner at an earlier stage, and I think it shows that he may be going to do likewise tonight.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I think we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for having summed up the feelings of the House and express our appreciation and thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for his receptiveness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to agree with that, too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("Memorial").
The noble Lord said, my Lords, this amendment is consequential. My name was put to the previous amendment, and this is consequential upon that one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.
7.12 p.m.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 15 and insert ("by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend—I have the feeling that this will be the last time I shall be doing so—for having accepted the previous amendment. I must confess that the brilliant drafting was not entirely mine: I had some assistance. I have put down these two amendments on the Marshalled List and they are alternatives. One is to appoint the trustees
" by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister".
and the other is that people are to be appointed by the Prime Minister. I need hardly say that I entirely prefer the first. My noble friend said on Committee stage that he would reconsider this matter, and I hope that in doing so he will have noted that my previous amendment was supported from all quarters. I think we would all wish to retain so far as possible the all-party approach that has prevailed until now. At the same time, we want to make progress with the Bill and I do not propose to make too long a speech. However, I would emphasise that, with regard to the amendments, the purpose I have had in mind all through has been to raise the status of the fund and its trustees and to emphasise in the statute the independence that the trustees should enjoy.
While I am doing so, I should like to take the opportunity, having had the chance to study his speech further, to refute some if not all the arguments deployed by my noble friend. At one stage, at column 1295 he said it was modern practice to have ministerial appointments instead of appointments being made by the Crown or the Prime Minister. That is to a certain extent true, because the majority of the appointments to which he is referring arc to what are colloquially known as "Quangos ", of which there have been a great many and of which I hope there will in the future be not quite so many. But we arc talking of bodies with a rather different kind of standing, I should hope, and I refer my noble friend to the Hansard report of the other place of 14th February 1978, and 19th May 1977, where he will find listed no fewer than 40 categories of appointments—not actual appointments but categories of appointment—which are made either by the Crown or by the Prime Minister.
They are not by any means all ancient institutions such as he referred to. My noble friend, after I have mentioned the British Museum and the National Gallery trustees, told us that they were appointed under statutes set up long ago. That is not correct. The trustees of the British Museum are appointed under a statute of 1963 and the trustees of the Tate and the National Gallery are appointed under a statute of 1954. He may well say that is continuing an ancient tradition and I would be the first to agree; but it is not true to say that this is not modern practice and merely an ancient tradition. It was deliberately not altered, in my view. Certain things were altered, as, for instance, in the case of the British Museum the Archbishop of Canterbury ceased to be the permanent chairman. However, the principle and standing of the trustees were entirely maintained.
I could cite other examples, but there is only one I should like to mention. Perhaps it is one that everybody knows; namely, that the Master of Churchill College is appointed by the Crown. Why? I would suggest it is because that college was intended as a memorial to a great statesman. Are we not discussing another kind of memorial today, and does that not equally demand the same kind of standing. position and prestige that the Master of

637
Churchill College should have for that reason?
My noble friend also said in column 1529:
" Ministers!are answerable for the policy area within which the body works and they provide its money. It would undermine their standing, vis-à -vis the trustees, if they were not also answerable for the appointment and dismissal of the trustees. "
If that really undermines the standing of Ministers, all I can say is that they are pretty poor fish. Does anyone seriously believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in any way inhibited, when he is speaking to the Governor of the Bank of England, by the fact that the latter is not appointed by him? Of course not. Furthermore, I think that if anything my noble friend's words are a little sinister. They are appointed for only three years and can be dismissed after that time. I would say on that, as he kindly referred to my efforts, that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and many others have been trying to establish the principle of the absolute independence of the trust and the trustees—independent of the Minister or Ministers, independent of the Treasury and, above all, independent of the restrictions which may from time to time be imposed by national policy. I think it is giving the show away to talk of "the Minister's responsibility "in regard to matters such as this.
In his speech and, I think, in the speech of the Minister for the Arts in another place, reference was made to the fact that in making these appointments Ministers would consult the Prime Minister, particularly as regards the chairman. If they are going to do that, why quibble about it at all? Why not let the appointment be made in the first place by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister or, if that is not acceptable, by the Prime Minister? What is going to happen if the Ministers disagree? Who is going to arbitrate?—the Prime Minister, of course. The machine of Downing Street is perfectly capable of dealing with the making of these appointments and of ascertaining the recommendations of the Ministers concerned. I think that my noble friend, if he gives this consideration, would agree that it is far tidier and simpler to do it in this way.
Lastly, I would say this to him: this issue of who should appoint the trustees was not properly considered in another place. They did not have the chance to do it. Mr. Arthur Jones' Bill, which followed my first effort in your Lordships' House did make appointments by the Prime Minister. That was a precedent but that Bill was never discussed. I think that before we finally decide on this matter it would be best if it were accepted and the other place had the opportunity to decide. Your Lordships' House would, of course, then accept their decision. I beg to move.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords,I should like to support my noble friend's amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept it. In the course of a long life, I have served as chairman of no fewer than three of the bodies which the Minister quoted when we last discussed the Bill as having their chairman appointed by the Prime Minister—the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the Arts Council, and the Tate Gallery. I can tell your Lordships that there are real advantages in this arrangement. The fact of Prime Ministerial appointment not only gives the enterprise a particular status, which in practice means that those who administer it or who are concerned in its administration give it special care and attention, but also the chairman can, in wholly exceptional circumstances, go direct to the Prime Minister to discuss with him some matter of principle which is of fundamental importance. That I know, because I did myself on one occasion have to do it. These are real advantages and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, may I in a very brief few words support what the other two noble Lords have said? They have made an excellent case, and I hope very much that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will be able to yield on this and accept either one amendment or the other. There is perhaps one additional point, in that the scope of these trustees will cover four different parts of the United Kingdom. A unifying factor for appointment, therefore, would be found if the Prime Minister or the Crown were to do this.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships' House will support this amendment, if the Government do not accept it. It is a very special body that we are creating. It is national, and the purpose of this national body is something that is very dear to the hearts of everyone. We discussed for quite a long time whether the word "memorial "should be included and we decided to keep it in. When we consider the nature of the body, there is nothing that would mark it out as more special than any other than that the appointment should be by the Crown. It is right that it should be.
I raised the question of other bodies that have Crown appointments. I think that the Minister may have been misled or was not properly briefed. I have thinking of more such bodies. I mentioned the Forestry Commission. I have checked that up, and it is right that the chairman of the Forestry Commission is appointed by the Queen. We have just left consideration of the Education Bill, to which we shall later return, and there is no ancient statute there wiping out what we in Scotland call the HMI, which is Her Majesty's Inspector. Believe it or not, it is a Royal appointment. It may be a little more ancient than the Forestry Commission. It stems from the fact that education in Scotland used to be run by a committee of the Privy Council. When you consider these things it is not unusual, but in this case it is absolutely right, and what is in the Bill is absolutely wrong. I have mentioned this before and I feel strongly about it.
The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss and March, mentioned the fact that this will cover all parts of the country—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England—and a considerable number of Ministers is involved there. That is one of the reasons why there is a Royal appointment in respect of the Forestry Commission. There are three Ministers involved there. They make up their minds, they present a suggestion to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister agrees and then it goes to the Crown.
I was in another place for 33 years and I should not like to count the number of Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster whom I knew. There are at least three or four of them in your Lordships' House
640
now, not one of whom had anything to do with the arts. The functions of the Chanccellor of the Duchy of Lancaster depend upon the personality of the Prime Minister. He can be shifted around and given different jobs to do; and the one person who should not be in this Bill is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It may be all right just now, but if there is a change and a different person comes into office, shall we have to amend the Bill? If we do not have to amend the Bill, then we are taking discretion away from the Prime Minister and tying his or her hands.
What is the solution to it all? The solution has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, in this amendment. So from the practical point of view in respect of naming Ministers, or naming anybody at all, and from the point of view of the status of the body that we are creating, this amendment meets the case.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, I support this amendment. This fund is not going to start life with great resources. It is all the more important, therefore, that its standing and authority is as high as we can make it.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, a further reason for supporting this amendment is that if we turn to clause 19(3) we find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when referred to in this Bill, is to be considered to be the Chancellor.
"in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the Arts".
If we so enact, it seems to me that we shall be, by statute, making the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster permanently responsible for the arts, and that may be a very inconvenient step to take in the long run.
Therefore, in any event, I should have thought it would be right to accept one or other of the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Reigate, but it seems to me that Amendment No. 5 is infinitely preferable to No. 6. There are those who would say that in strict constitutional result they would be the same, but there are reasons, which there is no need to mention in your Lordships' presence, for realizing that Amendment No. 5 would be infinitely preferable.
7.27 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I feel a small minnow in a large pool where all the whales are waiting to eat me. I have to tell your Lordships that we have taken very careful account of all that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and others said during the Committee stage. I promised then that I would look at this amendment, and I have done so. We have been told today by the noble Lord and others of a number of bodies whose members are appointed by the Crown or by the Prime Minister, rather than by the Ministers functionally responsible. These are all bodies which have been in existence for a considerable period of time. I appreciate what my noble friend said about some of them having had their existence reconfirmed by later Acts of Parliament. I do not deny that it used to be the practice for a very substantial number of these bodies to have their members appointed by the Sovereign or the Prime Minister, but it is not the practice nowadays and I feel bound to advise your Lordships that, in my view, the present practice is the better one.
I, of course, appreciate the point that appointment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund Trustees by the Sovereign, on the advice of the Prime Minister, would serve to emphasise the importance of the trustees and perhaps invest them with a little extra kudos. But let us, for a moment, examine the realities of the situation. The Prime Minister, and indeed the Sovereign, cannot concern themselves with the minutiae of heritage policy and cannot but be unaware of all the background details. Therefore, they will have to rely very heavily on the advice tendered by those Ministers who hold functional responsibility for the heritage.
As I said during the Committee stage, those Ministers are at present my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I must tell my noble friend Lord Renton that this is not really a problem of the Duchy of Lancaster. If ever he ceased to be involved, the Minister concerned would be put in the Bill. These two Ministers will, of course, consult the Prime Minister about these very important
642
appointments. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also made this point during the Second Reading in another place. This is not a mere formality. It is important that the chairman of any major body should be a person whom the Prime Minister has the right to approve, and when a public body is being set up for the first time this is also particularly important with respect to the other appointed members. My noble friend Lord Reigate is concerned that there would be two Ministers making the appointments. I know that he is worried about their possibly disagreeing. My noble friend Lord Cottesloe has implied that introducing the Prime Minister as referee might make matters simpler.
If the appointment of the trustees were to be made by the Prime Minister, or by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister, they would still have to look to the responsible Ministers for advice on the appointments. Governments hold collective responsibility. Where advice to the Prime Minister on appointments was required from two Ministers, those Ministers would have to get together and agree upon their advice beforehand. If they could not agree, then in this, as in other matters on which Ministers disagree, they would be able to take the matter to the Prime Minister.
I believe it is absolutely right that appointments in a particular area of Government policy should be made by the Ministers holding responsibility there and not given a somewhat spurious exaltation through a formal statutory appointment by a higher authority which does not reflect the reality of the situation. The omission of any reference to the Prime Minister does not mean that she is not consulted, nor does it mean that if the occasion arose she would not be able to act as referee.
I hope that with these words your Lordships will see the widsom of agreeing to what I am proposing and I hope that my noble friend may consider withdrawing his two amendments.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the noble Lord the Minister had to say in reply to the quite strong feeling expressed in the House. I take his point very well—first, that consultation with the Prime Minister is

643
more than a formality and that it is not just a rubber stamping. The one point which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has brought out is how the process will work. It did not sound quite like that either during Second Reading or during the Committee stage. The Minister has also underlined the point, quite rightly, that the two Ministers involved must play a leading part, because they are the people who will operate the Act. If I were now a Minister in the Department of the Environment I would not take it very kindly if an appointment were made, either by the Crown or by the Prime Minister, of someone who, for various reasons, was going to be difficult to work with or who was considered not to be right, practically, for the job.
Having said that, it seems to me from the feelings which have been expressed in all parts of the House that it is not very much of a job for the Ministers concerned to make their strong representations. Certainly nothing should be done over their heads. But for the appointment itself to be in the name of the Crown or the Prime Minister seems to me to get the new fund off to a very much more illustrious start. I myself think that on occasions these things do not necessarily matter; so long as one gets the right person for the job, it does not seem to be of primary interest who makes the appointment. But if it is going to mean such a great deal to the prestige, then it does not seem to me that the Government are being asked to make more than rather a small jump in order to put it on the lines which have been suggested and strongly put forward by so many Members of this House.
Frankly, I do not think that this is something upon which we ought to delay the progress of the Bill, but it seems a pity that the Government cannot come to some sort of an agreement which would suit the Members of this House and which would in no way diminish the standing of the Ministers concerned.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I did not rise before on this amendment because I had no wish to impede the progress of this admirable Bill, particularly on an amendment with which every noble Lord seemed to be in total
644
agreement. But we now find that the noble Lord who is handling the Bill is not in agreement, so I have risen to make absolutely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is aware of the extent of the unanimity in your Lordships' House on this amendment. As there are so few Members of your Lordships' House who take the view of the noble Lord, would it not be wise for him to allow this amendment to go forward so that he can find out whether there is anyone in another place who takes the view that he appears to take or whether they take the view that so many of us in your Lordships' House take.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord the Minister is not in the position of a little fish faced by whales. He is endeavouring very hard to play the part of King Canute. He is asking the waves to roll hack; but they will not roll back. I should like the Minister to know that from these Back-Benches, in the same way as from the Tory Back-Benches, quite apart from the Front Benches, there is unanimous support for Lord Reigate's first amendment, upon the basis that all of us want this, not—and I thought this was an unhappy phrase—in order that the fund may have spurious elegance but so that it may have genuine national prestige. That is what we all want, and I hope the Minister will realise before he replies that there is not one noble Lord who has risen who is in support of the point of view that he has advanced.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, I agree very strongly with my noble friend's amendment and with everybody on both sides of the House who has so far spoken. I cannot understand the Government's attitude. It is not a vital constitutional point; of course it is not. Why can they not try to do what this House wants and then see what another place decides? I quite see that my noble friend did his best with what he was trying to say, but it seemed to me that he was simply putting up Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down.
He said quite early in his speech—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the Prime Minister could not be expected to be bothered with the minutiae of a body like this. But does the Prime Minister in other bodies where she has the right of

645
prior appointment bother with their minutiae? Of course she does not. It is that kind of argument which distressses one a little about what I think is a sort of shadow boxing display by the Government, which I repeat I cannot understand.
By way of a suggestion to the noble Lord who spoke last, I should like to put in one quick word for King Canute. He did not try to keep back the waves. He told his courtiers that they themselves were being very stupid to try to do it. This mistake is always made, and that has upset me, too!
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I was not suggesting that King Canute would make this appointment, but I must make this defence for myself. King Canute did ask the waves to go back, though only because some foolish people asked him to do so. I feel that the noble Lord the Minister is in exactly the same position.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, 10 noble Lords have spoken and there has not been a single dissenting voice. The most eminent people in your Lordships' House who are interested in the arts have all agreed with one another. I should be very foolish to press my luck in the face of such wisdom. I am quite sure that if we called a Division now my noble friends would all seek advice from the Members of the House sitting here and that the unanimous opinion would be that my position is wrong. In the face of that, I must not be like King Canute. I must advise the House that I will accept what they are doing.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am so surprised by what has happened that even my noble friend could have knocked me down with a feather. I of course choose Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 6 was very much a second best, and I can think of a lot of arguments against it. I am delighted that in the face of this unanimous feeling my noble friend has been so generous as to agree. I have here pages of abuse which I should have poured upon his head if he had not done so, but I am now able very happily to tear up all my notes.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate,
646
would agree that some kind of consequential amendment will necessarily have to be made to Clause 19 when his amendment has been accepted. However, there would be no difficulty about that. While I am speaking on Clause 19, may I say that with deep respect I join issue with my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. When he endeavoured to convince your Lordships that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster —
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend. It is the Report stage and we are only allowed to speak once. We have not much time so perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to take my advice so that we may continue.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I will take that advice but I think my noble friend will have to reconsider what he said about the effect of the use of the words "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Jacques): My Lords, Amendment No. 6 cannot be called.
Clause 3 [Grants and loans from the Fund]:
7.41 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 2, line 23, after ("outstanding") insert ("archaeological").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 26. I hope I shall have a helpful answer, as the atmosphere seems to be so right at the present moment. I do not want to repeat all that I said in regard to the number of museums because that is already on record but since the last stage of the Bill I have received considerable support for my view. I am worried about the guidelines. Guidelines can be ignored, torn up or changed by a Minister and I should like to see the strength of the law written into this Bill. For example, there has been a marvellous chalice found in Southern Ireland and it was not found by historians but by archae-

647
ologists and the history is now going to be written up by the historians. The sepulchre was found by archaeologists and not by historians and then, as we know, it was written into the Bible.
Also, in subsection (7)(d) of this clause there is one mention of the Secretary of State acting in the discharge of his functions under Section 5 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 or Section 11(1) or 13 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Acts 1979, That seems to tie up with my amendments. Also I should like to mention that in Schedule 4 to the Finance Act of 1975 paragraph 17 there is reference in other words to the "in lieu "system as distinct from the business of trustees in Part 1 of this Bill. I should like to know whether there will be pre-eminence for the archaeological property and whether it will qualify. For instance, would Stonehenge be covered? I am merely giving that as an example because there may be other monuments of the same kind in the future and I should like to know whether they are safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lord MOW BRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I had hoped that we might have disposed of these amendments on the strength of what I said previously. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, feels very strongly that the term "archaeological "should appear on the face of the Bill but I must make it quite clear that the Government feel equally strongly that these amendments should be resisted.
I must tell my noble friend Lady Vickers that in no way am I open to argument on this amendment because we think it is totally unnecessary. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Reigate did something positive; this will not be doing something positive. As I made clear in Committee, there are two main reasons why we cannot accept the inclusion of the word "archaeological "in the Bill. The first is that it is quite unnecessary—the terms "scientific "" historic "and, in appropriate cases, "artistic "do cover archaeology. Second, and I think far more important, there is a real danger that by inserting the word ," archaeological ", we may restrict the very wide legal interpretation which can at present be
648
placed on other words in the Bill, and particularly in Clause 3(1), and this, in turn could restrict the trustees to help in individual cases.
I should respectfully like to remind my noble friend that at the Committee stage we had two similar sets of amendments purporting to clarify the Bill. One was moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford, adding the words "restore "or "restoration "and the other was moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot adding the words, "record repositories". My two noble friends accepted the force of the arguments, which apply particularly to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness has referred specifically to the eighth century silver chalice which was recently found in Ireland, and I can again give her a categorical assurance that had that happened here the trusters would have been able to help in an absolutely unrestricted way. They can help with the acquisition and the preservation of such an item. I keep repeating that it is covered by the term "historic and artistic "in Clause 3(1)(b) and I should also like to reassure the noble Baroness—which I know she does not find satisfactory—that the guidelines given to the trustees will make it crystal clear that the provisions of the Bill include the archaeological matters with which she is concerned. I hope the noble Baroness will now accept the assurance that I have given and will withdraw her amendment, because I assure her that I am not in any way prepared to give way on this amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I cannot very well say, "Thank you "for that reply because it is not in the least to my liking. I am disappointed about this and I was disappointed in the other House because there were 17 Members on the Committee, 15 attended and when it came to the vote only seven voted, which seems to show a lack of interest in both Houses. However, I will withdraw the amendment and perhaps I shall bring it back at the Third Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the amendment is withdrawn I should not like the noble Baroness to be under any illusion. We are hoping to have a formal Third Reading and I should not like her to feel that I have misled her.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the amendment has not yet been withdrawn I should like a firm assurance from the noble Lord, in view of his refusal to accept this, that the archaeological interest will go into the guidelines to the trustees and be drawn to the attention of their potential clients, so that as far as possible there is no chance of some archeological object of great value to the heritage being missed because the word "archaeological" does not appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I give that firm categorical assurance and while I am speaking I failed previously to mention Stonehenge. That is, of course, already in national ownership and if such a thing occurred the trustees would be able to use their discretion.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
7.49 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 29, leave out second ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be delighted to hear that this amendment and those following are designed to meet the point raised in Committee by a number of your Lordships, in particular by my noble friends Lord Wemyss and March and the Duke of Grafton, that the trustees should be able to assist with the acquisition of rights in or over land, even though it is not intended to acquire the land itself. Having considered carefully the debate in Committee, the Government accept that there may be occasions when it would be desirable to acquire rights over the land surrounding a piece of heritage property in order fully to protect that property. To take an example, much used in Committee, it may be desirable to acquire shooting rights over land around a nature reserve so that they could be extinguished. These amendments, if accepted, would enable the trustees to give grants to help with the acquisition of such rights.
There is one further point. Some concern has been expressed that the trustees
650
should be able to help purchase not only rights but also restrictions over land without actually purchasing the land. I can assure your Lordships that the amendment as drafted covers this point. Rights and restrictions are, so to speak, different sides of the same coin. If rights over land can be secured then rights to restrict the use of that land can also be secured. There is no need to refer to restrictions specifically in these amendments. I should add that Amendment No. 13 is a paving amendment and Amendment No. 17 is consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, may I say a word before the amendment is put. It does, of course, as the noble Lord has made clear, go together with all the others up to No. 17 inclusive. This is an entirely satisfactory answer to the points which we were urging at Committee stage, which particularly arose out of the experience over many years of the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland. I think the conclusion, if all these amendments are passed, is entirely satisfactory, and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, all I would say very briefly is thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("association") and insert ("connection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("; or
(e) any rights in or over land the acquisition of which is in their opinion desirable for the benefit of land or a building or structure falling within paragraph (a) or (d) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do beg your Lordships' pardon. I had spoken to No. 15. I had not spoken to No. 14. I am in a quandary. What do we do? Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 17 go together, which are the ones I have spoken to. I inadvertently said I had spoken to Amendment No. 14. Perhaps

651
when we get to Amendment No. 16 I can speak to No. 14 then, because those two go together.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.54 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("associated") and insert ("connected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do beg your Lordships' pardon and especially the pardon of the Deputy Speaker. This amendment goes with Amendment No. 14. The amendment is designed to ensure—and I am really talking to Amendment No. 14 now—that the meaning of Clause 3(1)(d) is not construed too narrowly. The Government amended Clause 3 in another place to enable the trustees to help with the acquisition of land, buildings or objects other than heritage property which they felt was needed because of their connection with heritage property. Since then we have thought further and now take the view that the word "association "could in the context of the Bill be taken to mean historical association. This interpretation would rule out the possibility that the trustees might wish to help with the acquisition of a car park or viewing point for a piece of outstanding scenic land. The use of the word "connected "avoids this problem. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 40, after ("associated") insert ("or, in the case of rights falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, the land building or structure for whose benefit they arc acquired").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to give further thought to the necessity of retaining subsection (4) in the light of representations made in this House and in another place. We have brought forward this amendment to remove it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, since my noble friend Lord Donaldson and I felt very strongly about this particular amendment, which now enables the trustees to make loans as well as grants, I think this is a tremendous improvement and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Other expenditure out of the Fund]:
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("subject to section [Acquisition and acceptance of certain property and directions as to its disposal] below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23 all go together, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak to them together. I am not in the least enamoured of these amendments. What I should like to do, if it were possible, is to strike out subsection (3) of both Clause 4 and Clause 3, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will not accept that. It is my hope that the noble Lord will accept Amendment No. 23, which bears the substance of what I am going to speak about, Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 being merely verbal leads in from Clause 4 and Clause 5, referring the reader of both to the next clause, which presumably would be No. 6, that is referred to in Amendment No. 23. I am sorry it is so complicated.
The object is to prevent the trustees having to ask the Ministers every time they want to acquire or accept property. The clichéwhich we have made, and which is the only really important point here, is that the trustees, being obviously good, substantial, trustworthy people should not be entirely fettered. Presumably when they are appointed the chairman will talk with the Minister, or Ministers, and be asked among other things to be very careful not to acquire property, not to acquire another Heveningham unless they are quite sure they can pass it on to the National Trust or some other suitable receiver. They should have some sort of discretion, and if they do not all the assurances given both in another place and in your Lordships' House, that the trustees are to have unfettered dis-

653
cretion, are really negated. I know that time is getting very short, so I will say no more but hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will have second thoughts, as he has before now, and accept Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Government must, I fear, resist these three amendments. The purpose, as the noble Earl has said, is to give the trustees discretion to acquire or accept gifts of property up to a certain value of the fund's resources, but at the same time to place a limit on the length of time the property may be retained. As I made clear in Committee, we feel strongly that the trustees need not, and should not, have discretion in this particular matter; and though we have carefully considered the point again we remain of that view, for a number of reasons.
First, we do not believe that an occasion will arise when the trustees will have to move so quickly—even by way of giving a financial commitment—that they would not have time to consult Ministers about their proposals. Particularly where land and buildings are concerned transactions are slow; with works of art it is usually known well in advance what will be up for sale, and for the most part it will be museums and galleries who will be the acquiring bodies.
In the very rare case where the trustees needed to move very quickly to acquire an item, they could always seek an urgent meeting with one or other of the Ministers concerned at which the proposed acquisition could be discussed and, if appropriate, approval given. Though I would be the last person to deny that Ministers are busy people, I have no doubt that, in important circumstances, Ministers would be prepared to meet the trustees at very short notice.
Secondly, I think that we must give a thought to the costs involved in maintaining heritage property. These may be small in the case of paintings or manuscripts but, where land and buildings are concerned, they could constitute a heavy drain on the resources available to the fund. And while, under the proposed amendment, the trustees could only acquire items up to a value of 20 per cent. of the fund's total resources without permission
654
from Ministers, the costs of running, maintaining and repairing a property could add significantly to the bill and take it well over the 20 per cent.
Last, but certainly not least, the Government would argue that discretion to hold property for up to three or 12 months without Minister's permission, as the noble Earl proposes, is, effectively, a power to hold property indefinitely. For if, say, the trustees were to acquire an historic house for which they could not find a new owner within 12 months, what could Ministers do but agree to the property being retained until a suitable new custodian could be found—perhaps in two, three or even four years' time? And during that period, the costs of maintaining the property would steadily he eroding the resources available for grants and loans for other equally or perhaps more deserving causes.
For all these reasons, the Government feel it is entirely right that the trustees should not be given absolute discretion to acquire property themselves without Ministers first having the chance to discuss with them what is involved. I believe that, far from finding this requirement a hindrance, the trustees might well find it helpful to have the authority of Ministers behind a decision to acquire. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, Lord Weymss and March, will now agree to withdraw his amendment so that the Bill can make progress.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think it is rather a pity that the Government will not accept that there could be some circumstances in which the trustees could be landed in a situation where it was vital for them to hold the property, even for a short time. I cannot imagine that the trustees—and I accept that it is not their job—would buy up property in the form of land or objects and hold on to it for even a short period. However, there is an outside chance and those of us who would like to see this provision inserted in the Bill in some way feel that the amendment would take care of the odd eventuality instead of shutting the door completely. I do not know whether the Government would be prepared to look at the matter again?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House,

655
I should like to say that we really can think of no such occasion when a Minister cannot be reached to be asked.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl on this amendment. One knows that so often opportunities arise for trustees and there are inevitable delays during which one has to ask permission from a Minister and those opportunities may be lost. Sometimes the trustees themselves are difficult to reach. Meetings have to be arranged and there will in any event be delays. I should like to support the amendment.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, I also should like to support the noble Earl. There may well be occasions when this would be a tactical advantage, although one appreciates the argument which the Government have put forward. It is a pity that the Government do not feel inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Earl and I shall do so very briefly. I cannot accept the assurance that Ministers will, at all times, be in the same place and readily available. There have been occasions when Ministers have been held up in isolated places. I can remember an instance when the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, could not get away from an island in Scotland for some days—and some days may be vital in certain cases as regards acceptance.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, I thank the various noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. But, in view of the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, it is probably useless for me to take the matter further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my first amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
8.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 31, after ("parent") insert ("or foster parent or guardian").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is probably an unnecessary amendment and I move it really in order to receive an assurance that it is unnecessary. I am not a lawyer and there may be a general rule of law that would cause the word "parent "always to include "guardian". However, I do not know—and I should like to be reassured on this that it always includes "foster parent." In this context it seems to me important that whoever is, in fact, in charge of the child and responsible for its welfare should have the same rights under this clause of the Bill as are enjoyed by a parent.
The only reason that I am rather fussy about this matter is that I remember that, as regards the law concerning housing, there used to be a provision whereby a landlord could turn his tenant out if he needed the premises. Certain degrees of relationship were prescribed and they did not include somebody who had been the tenant's foster child. I should like to be reassured that in every case the person who is responsible for the child has the same rights as the parent. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us from what legal provision that springs. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, an assurance on this point. The amendment is quite unnecessary. "Parent "throughout the Bill has the meaning ascribed to it by Section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944, which says:
" Parent ', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person".
Therefore, that covers both points that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("and this governor shall not serve longer than 12 months after any child of his has ceased to be a pupil at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. I imagine that, as the Minister offered to write to me about the other matter in Amendment No. 19, the matter raised by Amendment No. 22 will be covered in that letter. If I can have that assurance, I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, I am glad to give that assurance and I shall cover the matter in my letter.
Baroness DAVID: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22A and 23 not moved.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("in addition to a parent appointed as a foundation governor under subsection 4(b)(ii) above").
The noble Baroness said: I think that again this amendment will be covered by the letter which I am looking forward to receiving from the Minister. If I have that assurance I shall withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The particular point raised in this amendment is, I think, slightly different from the point upon which I said that I would write to the noble Baroness. However, I can assure her that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, earlier, provides that the governing body of a voluntary aided or special agreement school must include a parent appointed as a foundation governor under subsection (4)(b)(ii) and quite separately that it must also include a parent governor —which is defined in subsection (5) as a parent elected by other parents of children at the school. This parent governor could not also be a foundation governor as defined in Section 114(1) of the 1944 Act; that is, a person appointed for the
658
purposes specified there. The instrument of government of aided and special agreement schools, which under Section 17 of the 1944 Act is made by order of the Secretary of State, would in any event provide separately for these two categories of governors. I have explained this fully so that we may have it on the record for Members to refer to.
Baroness DAVID: I thank the Minister very much. In fact, it was my mistake. I have a note on my amendment "covered already ", and it was covered by the statement of the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and not by the earlier statement to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.11 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I may be being rather dense about this, but I should be grateful if the Government can explain the significance of subsection (6). It deals particularly with a school established in a hospital. I can understand why in some cases in a special school it might he difficult to provide for parent governors—the school might be a very small size. I cannot quite see why it should be more difficult if the school is established in a hospital than if it is not. I should be grateful if the Government can explain why this subsection is included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I must confess that when I saw this amendment I did not quite understand the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in tabling it, but I now understand that he wants an explanation as to what this clause really means.
As I indicated in an earlier debate about special schools, we attach great importance to the fact that the school governing provisions should apply to maintained special schools, and those include hospital schools. The noble Lord has now asked me why, in fact, the provisions are not precisely the same for hospital schools. Subsection (6) allows local education authorities to appoint parent governors to certain types of hospital schools where

659
it is impracticable to hold elections among the parents of pupils attending the hospital school. This situation arises in hospital schools serving specialist or general hospitals where the average length of stay of pupil-patients is about one week. It would not apply to hospital schools located in long-stay mental handicap hospitals, where it should be perfectly practicable to elect parent governors.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will himself be very familiar with the different types of case. We were anxious to ensure that both types of hospital schools were covered and that the provisions of subsection (6) would apply only where there were so many short-stay patients that it was quite impracticable to have a parent of someone in the hospital school. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this explanation and will, therefore feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): I understand that Amendment No. 26 will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Local education authorities in appointing governors as laid down in subsections (2), (3) and (4) above shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons:

(a) with special knowledge of educational matters,

(b) with personal links with the relevant school,

(c) living in the immediate neighbourhood of the school.").

The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said, this amendment is shown on the Marshalled List in the wrong names and should be down in the names of myself and my noble friends on these Benches. It has also been suggested, possibly because of that mistake, that it would have been right to take Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 as if
660
they were a whole. That is not our intention and so, when I have moved Amendment No. 26 and it has been put, my noble friend Lady Seear will move Amendment No. 27 as an amendment to it. This is not a sign that there is any dissension in the ranks of the Liberals, but they are, in fact, two slightly different types of amendment.
The amendment which I now move is very different from the ones that were considered before dinner in the names of noble Lords on the Labour Benches, whereas the amendment to be moved by my noble friend Lady Seear has a considerable connection with those other amendments.
My amendment is to do with a very general recommendation as to the qualifications for governors. Much as I approve and completely support the view that the local education authority should try to recruit people with particular interests of one kind or another, my amendment says that the governors should be chosen with a very definite reference to the school itself and to the interests of the particular school. Your Lordships are always moving in the middle ground between those who say, "Of course, this is common sense, and anyone with common sense would do it ", and those who have bitter experience of some parts of the country where, in fact, this has not been done in the past.
Therefore, I still maintain—as I did on the previous case which we considered—that it is very good that we should write this into the Bill so that it is there and can be referred to; so that anyone rising in a committee—whether it is a committee of the local education authority or wherever—can quote chapter and verse when trying to put his case forward. Although this Committee stage is still very "young "—I did not mean that!—I think that it has gone very well so far. I was tremendously surprised the last time this point about people being qualified was raised, that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, felt bound to turn it down. It seems to me that here was a case when on the whole and except for the Government Front Bench, everyone was agreed and no one could see a really rational objection to what was being suggested. If that applied then to the amendment being put forward by the Labour Front Bench, as I think it did,

661
surely it applies even more to this particular amendment, which is milder and which is concerned wholly with educational matters and matters to do with the immediate vicinity of the school and people who will be interested in the school. I still think that it is necessary that it should be included in the Bill and should be underlined, and, therefore, I beg to move.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
At end insert—
("(d) two of whom shall be persons actively engaged in industry.").
The noble Baroness said: We now have the opportunity, pointed out to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to vote for a more precise and definite Motion than the previous Motion, which merely suggested that persons with knowledge of industry—I deliberately do not use the word "representatives "—should be included on the boards of governors. Unlike the previous amendment, this amendment requires that there should be two persons with knowledge of industry. I am sure someone will say, "You have said industry ' and not ' commerce and agriculture '". I am using industry "here in the sense in which it is used in the standard industrial classification, which embraces both agriculture and commerce. It is a generic term; it means persons actively engaged in spheres of work.
The reason why we are pressing this is due to the overriding need, which was stressed in the previous debate but which I wish to underline, to get into the councils of the schools knowledge of what goes on in the world of work. We cannot exaggerate the need to get this link established and established quickly. Looking around in the industrial field, in the economy generally, to put right the ignorance in the schools of what youngsters need when they go into the world of work is one of our crying necessities. We all know that youngsters are being inadequately prepared for the world of work in many schools not through ill-will, but through sheer lack of knowledge of those concerned about what those youngsters are going to face when they leave school.
We had arguments deployed earlier this evening. I want not only to underline them but also to underline the urgency of doing something about this. Of course, the noble Baroness the Minister was right when she said that the work in this connection would be done by careers advisers and school teachers, but it is important that there should be people on the governing bodies who can ask probing questions; who can help to establish links between the schools and places of employment; who can put forward the ideas and suggestions that can only come from people who are themselves involved and up-to-date—and I underline "up-to-date "because so much of what is said in the educational field about industry is decades out-of-date—so that they can bring forward knowledge of what the world of work is like today. I stress this as a matter of the greatest urgency.
I know that the noble Baroness will say that we can leave it to the good sense of the governing bodies. But the governing bodies have presumably had good sense for a long time, but they have not done it. If they had had the good sense, they have not used it. It may be because some of them at any rate did not have the good sense. The fact that we may be legislating, in a way that is unnecessary even, maybe, for the majority—though I doubt it—still is no argument against legislating because the minority is an important minority. I beg the Committee to think again about this matter which we discussed earlier, and to take the opportunity to vote positively to make sure that we get people with up-to-date knowledge of the world of work on to the governing bodies of all our schools. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I do not want to repeat again everything that I said earlier in the debate, but I want to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. In going round the country and visiting many schools and listening to many people in the teaching profession, I find that they are crying out for this. They themselves wish this to happen. They wish to know what is going on. They want to get involved, because they find that they are completely at a loss as to what is going on in industry, using Lady Seear's definition for industry. They wish to know all this.

663
I was greatly disappointed that we did not take advantage of the situation in the raising of the school leaving age for this link between the schools and industry at that particular time. This is a golden opportunity for us to accept this, and for us to be a bridge between ourselves and industry, and try to encourage people to take an active part in what is going on. I support the amendment.
Lord SEGAL: While very reluctant to speak against this amendment, which I should imagine has a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the Committee, to insert two "persons actively engaged in industry ", may I ask whether we ought not to be rather careful to see that both these people are not actively engaged in one side of industry? Ought we not to be precise and see that they are accurately balanced, one on one side of industry and one from the other side of industry?
8.25 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I should first explain that the amendment is defective, as there is no provision in subsections (3) or (4) for the local education authority to make any appointments. It is under subsection (2) that a local education authority will make its appointments to the governing bodies of all maintained schools.
At first sight this Amendment, like Amendment No. 11, seems a reasonable and desirable one. But the Government believe that it should be the responsibility of the local education authority to decide how the local community should be represented on governing bodies and that the selection of appropriate individuals for this purpose can and should be left to their good sense. It is precisely to facilitate this that we have proposed in the Bill only a basic framework of minimum levels of representation, leaving the overall size and detailed composition of governing bodies for local education authorities themselves to decide. The Bill already provides for parent governors, who will in most cases live close to the school and will always have personal links with it. Beyond that I do not see any point in providing in statute for old boy or grand parent governors. Teachers may be presumed to have some specialist knowledge and we are not trying to set the governors up in competition. While I entirely accept the
664
desirability of governing bodies being constituted so as to provide a link with the world of work, I say as I have said several times, I am sure that the way this is done should be left to the good sense of LEAs. I am sure in any case that we would not wish such links to be limited to representatives of industry—other amendments we are considering show that the net can and should be cast wider than that.
For that matter there are many groups besides these listed with a strong claim to representation on school governing bodies. Amendments proposed in another place listed no fewer than nine such groups: higher and further education, industry, commerce, agriculture, community relations, non-teaching staff, pupils, trades unions, employers—and one could think of others like universities. To list all of them would have no more effect than to list none of them. The Bill provides in Clause 2 for any of them to be represented and I am sure that it must be for local decision in the light of local circumstances how individual governing bodies should be composed.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said that so far as he knew schools were crying out—I think he said—for it to happen. Indeed, if that is so here they have the opportunity to make it happen. It is to be within their powers henceforth so to do. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, made was very apposite, because he feared that they may be all from one side. They might in some circumstances indeed all be from one side; but then to get a balance you would have to specify, if you did not want that, that there would have to be one from one side and one from another. Then you would have to start to define the one and the other. Then you would have to consider the relative merits of the claims of others as well.
I suggest we would come back to the basic point that, at the end of the day, we have to leave it to the local education authorities. if, in fact, as perhaps quite fairly the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the track record so far in that sense is not what we would like it to be, well that is for attention in another way. But for us to prescribe by statute precise detail of the kind now submitted I think would be wrong and would be self-defeating.
Lord HEYCOCK: In considering any new Act of Parliament surely we profit from experience. I assume that the amendment before us this evening is one drawn from experience. I am pretty certain that it was the intention of the noble Baroness to talk in terms of curricula, which is the broad base on which teachers talk in terms of careers; careers masters who have contact with industry, and give guidance to the children. Those are factors within the curricula of a school.
What is being said here is, leave it to the local authorities to give guidance. If this is the 18th amending Act to the 1944 Act, one would assume in the broad sense that we have drawn from experience. What is being said clearly is that if we have members from industry on a governing body, then that would lend added experience to the normal experience of people collected there.
I do not want to get vocational guidance in the school at any early stage in any sense, but to enter the broad curricula and teach children until they are 16 years old. Frankly, I am appalled when I hear it said that we give all authority to local authorities. How can that be the case when local authorities are restricted in many ways? We will come later to the whole question of school transport and a variety of other things, and we must accept that there are restrictions on local authorities. Therefore, on the one hand it is a said, "We must give them this kind of flexibility ", while on the other we say, "These restrictions will be placed on them". The Government cannot have it both ways.
What I am putting is a logical argument; we must broaden the base of the governors. Yes, we must get them from industry and whatever other trades and professions are relevant, and if I were in my area of Port Talbot, probably the steel industry would be related in this context. if I lived in an agricultural community, I would draw the governors from agriculture. What we want is a variety of interests, economic and social, related to the schools.
Bearing that in mind, I am surprised that on this simple and elementary amendment the Government should be sticking their feet in. It is all very well to say that local authorities should have
666
freedom, but I warn that if the Local Government Bill ever reaches your Lordships' House we will see how much freedom local authorities are getting. We cannot use the word "freedom only when it suits us. Let us use flexibility of freedom logically—and that goes for when noble Lords express reasoned argument—and if the Government accept the amendment I will believe they believe in freedom.
8.33 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I say that we on these Benches are not entirely happy with the Government response to our amendments, and therefore we think it right to divide this argument, as it is divided on the Order Paper, into two, because if we do not get the right response we are prepared to divide the Committee on both sections. There are certain matters which I would adduce in reply to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 26, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but I will hold my fire on that because I know that my noble friend Lady Seear wants to respond.
At this stage the only point I would make is in response to the statement by the noble Lord that the amendment was badly drafted because it referred to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I think he will confirm that it is right in referring to subsection (2) and it is wrong only in that I did a sort of blunderbuss blanket fire and included subsections (3) and (4). If the Committee accept that point, I undertake to withdraw subsections (3) and (4) on Report. Thus, putting off for the moment the important points I want to put about Amendment No. 26, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and returning now to the amendment to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear, I do not think the Minister produced an adequate answer to that, but I think my noble friend would wish to take it from there.
Baroness SEEAR: Beacuse we have already discussed this at some length, I do not have a great deal more to say, except to confirm what my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, that if the Government cannot accept the amendment I am afraid I shall have to divide the Committee.
Lord PARRY: I hesitate to intervene, and I am encouraged only by the sudden reappearane among us of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who promised us a great deal of attention on Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 before he disappeared, so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I say that it might be helpful to the Committee in its present mood of family interest in what is, after all, a family subject—namely, education, whatever our backgrounds—to note that my noble friend Lord Heycock is a man who has put a lifetime into the service of education in Wales and is greatly honoured among my countrymen for the service he has rendered. When he speaks, he speaks on (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 26, because he has special knowledge of educational matters "and "personal links with the relevant school".
When I stayed recently with his son, I found his grand-daughter being taken to school by her grandfather before he caught the train to your Lordships' House, and he delivered her to the local nursery school. My noble friend is therefore totally connected. He lives in the immediate area of that school and has been all his life actively engaged in Welsh industry. I suggest he is typical of men and women on both sides of the Committee who have given service in local government. I am sure we would all join in refuting some of the sneers we hear from time to time about the quality of that service by men and women of all political parties who devote their time and energy, as my noble friend Lord Heycock has done, to the furthering of the chances of a new generation in this country.
It is in this context that I will read to the Committee a letter I have received which is germane to the amendments under discussion. It is from a Mrs M. E. Carter, who, so far as I am aware, I do not know; but 1 say that in defence because my wife may hear about this debate. Mrs Carter writes from 32 Cannon Street, Cherry Orchards, Shrewsbury, Salop, and she says:
" Nursery education and the Education Bill. I wish to bring to your notice the need for nursery schools and hope you will bear this in mind when the Education Bill is brought to the House of Lords. I believe nursery schools play an important part in preparing young people for formal school and teaching them gentle disciplines and how to make friends with other children, which is obviously advantageous. Nursery schools provide
668
employment for teachers and enable mothers to go back to their careers after they have had children. In my opinion, nursery schools are necessary in our present-day society and I hope you will bear this in mind when considering the Education Bill".
That letter has probably also been addressed to many other noble Lords, who would have received it, as I did. At times we must screw our courage to the sticking place, to quote William Shakespeare, and in this debate at some time noble Lords opposite must give way to the general feeling which they express and share with us and allow us at least one amendment, and I hope this might be the one.
Lord GRIDLEY: I intervene briefly to say that I find it difficult to support the amendment. I was chairman of a board of governors, although it happened to be a girls' school, which I found very interesting, and I should have thought that when one was considering the appointment of governors to the governing boards of schools it would be unnecessary to stipulate to education authorities the provisions they must take into account when making the selection. I should have thought—and it is my experience that they do think—that it would be of importance to select a governor with special knowledge of educational matters; certainly they would look at the desirability of having somebody with relevant links with the school itself, and one would equally certainly look for a person who was living in the immediate neighbourhood. I therefore cannot see that it is relevant to suggest that the amendment should be passed, for I sincerely feel that these considerations are borne in mind by the education authority.
Lord AUCKLAND: I have given a great deal of study to these amendments and, although I am not on the board of governors of any school, I have two close relatives who are chairmen of boards of governors and I have close links with at least two of our local maintained schools. I much prefer Amendment No. 26(b) as being by far the most logical of the amendments tabled, and one which I am sure in any case is applied to the majority of schools. Once we go into all the professions, industries and so on, bearing in mind that the Bill covers the entire country —not only Wales and the North, but Surrey, Sussex and so on—I agree with my noble friend Lord Gridley that it is the

669
local authorities which, after all, have wide experience, whatever their political persuasions might be, of deciding these factors. The vast majority of school governors are involved in industry, commerce, medicine, agriculture and so on, although admittedly some of them may have retired from those trades or professions. I believe that Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because where do we stop? The local authorities should have the say. That is, after all, why they are democratically elected. I hope this amendment will fall.
Baroness DAVID: I am absolutely amazed at the negative attitude of the Members on the Benches opposite. We have got a new Education Bill and we want to do something with it. To say that everything is all right, thank you, is not good enough. We have had no new arguments against this amendment which were not offered against Amendment No. 11 which we put forward. It is quite extraordinary that this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I want to say only a few words. There is always the possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may arrive while I am saying them. The Government are being most tiresome and really pernickety about this. Lord Bellwin's first objection to Amendment No. 26 was that it was defective. Apparently it was defective because the words "(3) and (4) "in it were unnecessary. Being equally pernickety myself, I should have thought that made it excessive rather than defective. It certainly was not defective in the legal sense because the presence of those unnecessary words would not have invalidated the effect of the rest of the amendment. That has been the level of the Government's comment. But on the serious issue, surely the position is this.
It has been made plain during the debate on these amendments, and on the earlier amendment moved from our Benches, that there is very widespread feeling in the Committee that it would be useful to give a general guide to local authorities asking them to remember the claims of industry and the other things which have been mentioned when they are appointing governors. That seems a widespread view. Ballots are fashionable
670
today, particularly among supporters of the Government. I have a feeling that if we took a ballot of Members present in the Chambers at this moment we would have a majority for these amendments or for the earlier one. The Minister was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, if she could say what harm it would do. That question is still totally unanswered, except for one very odd answer indeed. Lady Young pointed out that if an amendment which I moved earlier, which would give the local authority representatives at least half of the board of governors, had been carried then these amendments would have made the total number of governors too great. Since my amendment was not carried, there is no substance in that argument at all.
I cannot help feeling that somewhere at the back of the Government's mind there lies the real reason why they are obstructing this amendment, but I cannot for the life of me guess what it is, and I do not believe anyone else can either. The reasons against so far have been quite trifling: we want to give the local authorities freedom. Do you want to give them freedom to ignore every reasonable consideration when they are appointing governors? Since the Government are on the point of bringing in a Bill that is to tic local authorities hand and foot financially, what is all this talk about giving them freedom? There has been no conceivable real objection. I accept that there may be faults in the wording of all the amendments. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out the answer to that. The Government have only to say that they are warmly in sympathy with the objects of these amendments, that it would be desirable to put something of the kind in the Bill, and that they will produce a reasonable, workable amendment in that sense on Report, and they will receive congratulations from all sources. I really do beg the Government to do it.
8.44 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps I might deal with the points raised more or less in the sequence in which they were raised. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said about the respect one would have for the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. It goes without saying at all,

671
unreservedly. He said that it would be useful to have such categories of people on the governing bodies. Of course it would. He went on to say that it would broaden the base. Indeed it would. But the point we are making is, but not by statute, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier and which I will, if I may, touch upon again in a moment.
I should like to make one comment on an observation which Lord Heycock made and which Lord Stewart just touched upon. Lord Heycock said that he was not sure if the Bill was coming into this House. Let me give him an assurance that it will be coming. Let me also say, as I have already indicated, with no disrespect—I hope never—that I need no lessons from anyone when we talk about freedoms for local government; that my personal aspirations for local government are as deeply held as those of anyone else in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is always so persuasive, often very hard to resist. Sometimes it is not easy so to do. I heartily endorse his sentiments, again without reservation, about local government. He will always get me to respond to him on that. I did not think his reference to nursery schools was terribly relevant to this particular amendment, but why not get it in anyhow? The sentiments were there, and why not? I was grateful to Lord Gridley for his support and also to Lord Auckland, who really hit the nail on the head and referred to the kernel of our objections to accepting this amendment, despite the fact that I repeat again that with the basic philosophy behind it there is no difference between us. The fact is—Lord Auckland said it—where do you draw the line? I touched on it in a category of nine groups which were mentioned in another place as an example that they, too, would feel that they should be included, and why not? That is the whole point. We are saying "By all means, yes, it would be a good thing. Yes, do let us broaden the base." But at the end of the day it has to be left to the local authorities to do it, because when one starts to try to categorise them, to list who should be in and who should not be in, one runs into trouble and takes away from the local authorities.
Lord Stewart wondered what was the
672
motivation. It had to be, as he saw it, something sinister, because he could not see the merit of it on the surface. May I assure him that there is nothing sinister at all. It is precisely what I have said. It is no more, but it is also no less. Regretting as I do the fact (one would like to be so helpful and accommodating—and, who knows, in other ways we may be at times) I fear that on this matter the Government have to stick by their line.
Viscount SIMON: The Minister said something about taking things away from the local authorities. It is not clear how this amendment takes anything away from the local authorities.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps that was slightly out of context. I was referring to the matter of freedoms for local government generally. I think that was the point I made. I was referring to something else.
Lord MISHCON: Before the Minister makes up his mind finally on this matter, which is very important, would he consider it with some of the clarity of thought with which he usually indulges the House but on this occasion has failed to do so? As I understand it, his main point is that we are dealing with the exercising by a local authority of its discretion; that that discretion ought to be a very wide and unlimited one when it comes to the question of the appointment of governors. I certainly do not bow to anybody in this Chamber, if I may say so with humility, although the phrase did not start off with humility, on the point of view of respect for the powers of local government. I believe I am entitled to say that.
This is not the question. For example, if one tries to look at the logic of the Minister's argument, one turns immediately to a clause of this Bill that we have already looked at. I am referring to Clause 2(5), which says:
" The governing body of a county or controlled school shall include at least two parent governors!"
That is national policy laid down. Can one not argue that local education authorities have got the good common sense to say that parent governors ought to be included in their midst? Why include that in a Bill? Why not say to the local

673
education authorities, "We can trust you. You have got common sense. You want parents included "?
Subsection (6) of Clause 2 states:
" Subsection (5)!shall apply to a special school maintained by a local education authority!"
It goes on:
"!it appears to the authority to be impracticable for the governing body to include parent governors it shall include at least two governors who are parents of children of compulsory school age."
Subsection (7) says:
" The governing body of a county or voluntary school or a special school!shall if the school has less than three hundred registered pupils, include at least one, and in any other case, at least two teacher governors!"
Again, nationally we are laying down to the local education authorities, without peradvanture, without giving them the slightest discretion, a mandatory provision that they shall include parents, because otherwise they would not dream of it, and they shall include teachers because they have not got the intelligence to include teachers.
Then we come to a question of national policy which in my respectful submission is even more important, however important teacher inclusion, pupil inclusion and parent inclusion may be. One comes to a national crisis at this moment in regard to the contribution that the next generation can make to the industrial life of this country. It is the biggest national problem that we have got. Those of us who do not agree with that could not have been at the debate in this House —what a fine debate it was—on the Finniston Report. We have got an opportunity, because of national policy and national need, and in a national Parliament, to say, "Please, local education authorities, nationally we realise the importance of this. Include in your governing bodies those who are schooled in industrial life and those who may therefore encourage in our schools the sort of product from the schools which will be of use to the nation in time to come".
I must comment on the sheer incongruity, the illogicality of providing—I must repeat it—an insistence upon local education authorities as to the number of parent governors and the number of teacher governors but saying it would be
674
such an infringement of local authority powers and such an insult to local authority intelligence that we cannot give them this guidance in a statute, because guidance is all it is. If the Government decide to adopt this attitude tonight, it is not just a question of obstinacy. It is a question of losing a golden opportunity to put in a national Bill that which we need so badly in the years ahead.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Having listened to the last summary I find the Government's attitude prosaic and anachronistic. Driving up today and listening to my radio, I heard that new impetus is being given to teaching this generation of children the art of electronics: how to use computers, buying computers for schools and working out what they will cost. If anything needs to be known today by nations it is that they have to keep up with the new impetus in industry.
When the 1944 Education Act was published the Fabian Society produced an excellent pamphlet on the Butler Act. One of its final paragraphs asked how we were going to give the engine and the power to this new Act. The engine and the power to the generation of the future are based upon different mathematics from those I was brought up on and different from those which my wife, who has an honours degree in mathematics, was brought up on. It is a completely new approach, and unless into the schools of today are brought people who are aware of the advances, the electronic devices, computerisation and cybernetics which are entering into modern industry, one is bringing up a gang of people who can only use the pick and the shovel.
I am therefore suggesting that one cannot turn down jestingly the constructive debate which the Committee has had today. The future of Britain depends upon the quality of the children we produce, children who are alert and can master the magnificent knowledge which is at the fingertips of mankind today. No longer are we a bunch of agricultural labourers and a bunch of shopkeepers. We are a nation whose destiny depends upon our ability to compete with the rest of the world educationally and also in industry and its subsidiaries.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I fully agree with the eloquent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The only point where he is wrong is in thinking that that kind of thing has very much to do with the governing body. I have indicated this before. What really is going to deal with this revolution which some of us know something about, being scientists, is having properly trained, good science teachers and other teachers in our schools. The members of governing bodies do not really—nor should they—have much to do with cybernetics or the technological revolution. They meet about once every three months or whatever the period is, but they do not and should not have much to do with the curriculum because they do not know much about it.
I would accept this amendment if I were the Government, but I can quite see that what they are saying is, "Look, this is platitudinous." If I may say so, it is quite different to say there should be parent governors, because that is a new step. I am not sure I approve of it, but it is trendy, it is a new step, so one has it. But the idea that one must have some people who are interested in education, some people who live in the neighbourhood, some people who are aware of what is going on in the outside world and have contacts with industry so that the kids can get jobs, is not worth putting in legislation. I think that at the end one will be saying they have got to be clean, honest and sober. One cannot do that; it is too silly. I would accept it to make anyone happy, but, on the other hand, if the Government are not prepared to accept a string of platitudes like that then they have my sympathy.
It is not a bit like parent governors. Believe me, it has nothing to do with the changes that have got to take place in our schools. The changes are not revolutionary. They will not be done here. The real point is that we have got to support the best teachers in their efforts. They know where to go. They know what is required. They know about the technological revolution. What they want is the chance to do it in the best possible circumstances.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: In view of the noble Lord's great experience in these matters, does he not think that one of the problems in our
676
schools, and indeed in further education, is that so many young people of great talent do not think of going into industry as their career, and that the contribution which might be made—albeit on a board of governors—by those with great experience in industry who would be interested in the school might well alleviate a grave national lack of talent going into industry?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I think that there is a real point there. I never noticed it because I was in Manchester, that great industrial city, and I had some industrialists round about the place all the time. Many of my best boys went into industry, where they still are. I think that this reluctance to go into industry is slightly overdone, but that is another story and has nothing to do with the amendment. I believe that most schools are fairly conscious of the need to get a few industrialists on their governing bodies, partly because they are usually fairly rich and contribute to the appeal fund. That is my experience of schools, but it is probably a jaundiced one. Honestly I have not really noticed this point, but I appreciate the motive behind the question: namely, that we must encourage more and more of our best chaps to go into industry at one level or the other.
Lord PARRY: To ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, even through the Front Bench of the opposite side of the Committee, is a little like treading on the feet of Gamaliel, instead of sitting at them. Nevertheless I think it important to ask him whether he believes that his view of the lack of importance of the governing body in the context of a school such as Manchester Grammar School is in fact the Government's view in putting forward this legislation. I get the impression that the Government believe the governing bodies of schools to be vastly more important than the noble Lord, Lord James, does. One can understand the attitude of a successful headmaster of a great school being slightly patronising towards his governing body, but that surely is not the mood of a Government putting forward legislation—
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I would not say that my attitude was patronising; it was friendly, warm—
Lord PARRY: I withdraw the word.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I had the happiest relations with my governing body. I believe that raising the status of governors, making them governors instead of managers, is absolutely admirable, and I am sure that they are giving the greatest help to schools. What I do think is patronising is to explain that such a body should contain, first, people who are interested in education, secondly, people who live in the neighbourhood, and thirdly, something else. That is patronising, because anyone who is not half-witted would realise that straight away.
Baroness SEEAR: I really must say to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, that if one is High Master of a school such as Manchester Grammar School one has happy relationships with excellent governors, but some of us have had to deal up and down the country with schools that are totally unlike Manchester Grammar School. The experience of many of us has been that there is not the necessary knowledge of industry in the teaching force. The teachers have gone from school to college, and then back to school. There is a great contempt for industry among many teachers, a contempt based to a considerable extent on lack of knowledge of what industry is like today.
This is not something which we on the Liberal Benches have dreamt up. It is widespread experience, reported up and down the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said. If all schools were like Manchester Grammar School, the educational problem of this country, and schools' relations with industry and with governing bodies would be quite different, I fully accept. But if we are to wait until all schools are like Manchester Grammar School, this country will be broke.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: If the noble Baroness thinks that putting on a governing body one person who knows something about industry will bring about the change suggested, I am afraid that she deludes herself.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I think that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has missed a very important
678
point. I was not aware that he had been associated with Manchester Grammar School, which of course enjoys an enormously high reputation. But the fact of the matter is that in many hundreds of schools throughout the country governing bodies now want information on what is happening outside. In far too many areas too many children have nothing waiting for them outside. Parents want to be informed by people within the community of, for instance, Manpower Services Commission schemes, or life and social skills courses. In my experience of sitting on a governing body these matters are hardly ever mentioned. There is usually a long debate perhaps about how well the sixth form is doing and what wonderful results they are achieving, or perhaps about a problem with young X, Y or Z, playing truant, and what is to be done about it. Really important problems that face youngsters in areas unlike that of Manchester Grammar School call for expertise on the governing bodies. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government persist in resisting what is a means of helping governing bodies in the schools.
I have tremendous respect for the noble Baroness. She is a bonny counter-puncher, but I have noticed that the deeper we get into the Bill, the less she seems to be punching her weight, and it seems to me that pound for pound the best arguments are coming from this side of the Committee.
Baroness GAITSKELL: May I add one sentence to this particular debate. Not only do I think that this proposal is useful, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, has said, but it is good for the children and it is good for the other governors. That is all I want to say.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I point out to my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme that I, being a Lancastrian, and knowing Manchester Grammar School very well, recall that when the noble Lord, Lord James, was High Master of the school he did quite a number of good things in courting industry and bringing industrialists on to his governing body, through his chairman. He did exactly the same at York. I have for many years followed the way in which he has worked, and he has done a jolly good job in tackling the matter this way. There-

679
fore I am surprised at what he has said this evening.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I rise merely to say how jolly good, but why put it in legislation, because it is so obvious?
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, seems to feel that I am unable to say anything on this amendment. It is not that I am unable to say anything, but rather than I feel that we have had rather a diffuse discussion. It has gone backwards and forwards on a number of issues which are not really relevant to the point at issue. The Government have designed a Bill in order to have by statute school governing bodies, and we have decided as a matter of principle that there should be the minimum prescription about them. We have proposed to include parents, which the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, may feel is a little trendy, but which we believe recognises what is a great social fact of today. We have included teachers because we believe in the importance of the teachers as the backbone of the education system; and we recognise, for all the arguments that have been adduced on this matter, the importance of the teachers as part of school life.
That is all we have said. The rest is for local education authorities to decide. We accept in principle a great deal of the argument as to the need for better links with industry—and I must say that I welcome the conversion of the Benches opposite to the importance of British industry, both private and public, which I have seldom heard set out so well by so many at such great length. I think it is splendid. May I say that this is just as much a matter for the staff of the school as for the governors, and I am afraid we cannot accept these amendments for the reasons we have already stated.
Lord HEYCOCK: Can the noble Baroness tell us why, then, the Government decided to include parents? What is the justification for that and for having teachers? I have experienced both among governing bodies. Can the noble Baroness tell us what contribution they are likely to make to the administration of the school? That is the point that the
680
noble Lord, Lord James, made. For goodness sake, we do not want to talk about curricula, or to interfere with curricula. That is laid down. We did it in Manchester, and I understand in every school in this country; and, if I may say so, the headmaster and the teachers have the freedom to do that. We are not concerned with that fact or at all, but we are concerned with bringing industry in, so that we get the experience. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor that you did it in three instances, and now you are objecting. You must have had a specific reason for bringing them in. What we say is that, for the same reason you had for bringing them in, we would like them in our own schools.
For the life of me, I cannot understand logically why you say, first of all, that we will have parents—there must be justification—and then that we will have teachers, but then you say we have no justification for bringing industrialists into the governing body. Frankly, I cannot understand the logic of that reasoning at all. If there is justification for outside influences within the school, then obviously we must embody it very clearly. I do not want to repeat what I said previously, but we are going into a new age. I am not going to suggest that industrialists will teach the kids in school the mechanics of the silicon age or the changing pattern of our society. No; but at least they will bring into school the experience of industry, and might take the children out to industry, where they can experience these fundamental changes. I think that is the essential value of this suggestion, and for the world of me I cannot understand why the Government are making heavy weather of this. They talk about liberty and freedom. Those are relative terms in the circumstances. You must have a certain amount of freedom. Frankly, I cannot understand the logic of the argument, putting two in and saying that the third must not go in.
In Manchester, you get the grammar school, with its large catchment area and the best type of students in the school, and then you get another school where you get a restricted catchment area and you hope that the impact of the governing body will at least give an impetus towards having some relation to industry. I cannot in any sense understand the

681
attitude of the Government on this particular issue. As I said earlier, this will be a new Education Act and I presume that what we are deciding this evening, from our own experience, is that these things should be done. We are not making it mandatory. What we are saying, in a kind of advisory way, is that these are the things we should like to have in the constitution of a governing body.
Baroness SEEAR: May I suggest that we now divide the Committee?
9.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) to the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 81; Not-Contents, 115.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Plant, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hall, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Heycock, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blease, L.

Ingleby, V.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Parry, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Inglewood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Armstrong, L.

Exeter, M.

Kilmany, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kimberley, E.

Avon, E.

Falmouth, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

London, Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Galloway, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Lyell, L.

Cathcart, E.

Glendevon, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mansfield, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gridley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hacking, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Haig, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Hatherton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Henley, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Hertford, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derby, Bp.

Hives, L.

Norfolk, D.

Digby, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hylton, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.

Swinton, E.

Ponder, L.

Savile, L.

Tranmire, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Reigate, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaizey, L.

Renton, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Stradbroke, E.

Vickers, B.

Rochdale, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wynford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Young, B.

Sandford, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.21 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): We now revert to Amendment No. 26, unamended, as it stands. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to?
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: It is not our intention to test this in the Lobbies tonight. I think that, after the last exchange, it is surely right that we should give the Government time to go away and think. This Committee has shown in the speeches that we are not at all partisan. There is a very real point here and a very real feeling that there should be something written into the Bill to give guidelines, to encourage those authorities which have the right ideas and to discourage those which have the wrong ones. The noble Lord, Lord James, said that to write into the Bill that people on the governing bodies should have special knowledge of educational matters and should have personal links with the relevant schools and live in the immediate neighbourhood of the schools was as platitudinous as to say that they should be clean, honest and sober.
In my time as a spokesman for the Liberal Party on education (which I have been, on and off, for twelve years) I have met members of boards of governors who have been clean, honest and sober. I have met boards of governors which did not contain people who lived anywhere near the school—and you can find that in the derelict areas of the East End of London without going into any other cities. I have met people who have had no personal links with the relevant school and who have been appointed to the board as some kind of benefit. I have never met a whole governing body none
684
of whose members had special knowledge of educational matters, but I have met governing bodies very few of whose members had any knowledge of educational matters. It is absolute nonsense to say that such boards of governors do not exist.
To write into the Bill provisions such as I have suggested obviously will not bring about reform overnight, and nobody pretends it will. But I say to the noble Lords, Lord Gridley and Lord James, both of whom seemed to think that there was no need for this provision, that wide though their knowledge of schools may be, it is not wide enough. There are plenty of schools such as I have suggested, and one can find them easily.
I am not averse to anybody suggesting that I am talking rubbish, and no doubt a number of noble Lords will take that view, but on this matter I do not think that I am doing so. However, since it is time to move on to another subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Local authorities when appointing governors to a special school shall have regard to the desirability of appointing one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons and of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister on the Front Bench said in the last debate that he had the desire to be accommodating. I hope that he will be accommodating. This amendment does not cover any of the nine groups to which he referred in the last debate. I would submit to your Lordships that it is neither trendy nor politically very powerful; but it seems to me a very important principle

685
that in the special schools the governors, where possible, should comprise people who themselves are actively concerned in the work of the special schools and who themselves are people for whom special schools are designed.
The country has benefited enormously from charitable people who have done this work out of the goodness of their hearts; but as part of the general movement towards people assuming responsibility for their own lives, we must include in this the responsibility of the disabled to assume the responsibility for their own lives and, in particular, for their own children. Therefore though the Minister felt unable to accept my earlier amendment, I am very much encouraged by the thought that the spirit of that amendment will be contained in the new Bill which we hope will be coming forward very soon. This amendment should prove to be completely non-contentious. It certainly will be extremely helpful to the special schools. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this amendment. I was chairman of a special school for many years. I found it most advantageous to the rest of the managers of that particular school to have people who were actually disabled, had been disabled or had been part of the community of that school, on the governing body. They assisted us greatly. They gave us a lot of knowledge and know-how of what went on in the school, what disabilities there were, and it was very good for us. I am sure that this amendment is the right one because it will greatly improve the efficiency and the running of a school.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like also to support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. While speaking on this amendment I wish also to speak on Amendment No. 33 which is to be moved by the Countess of Loudoun, Lady Kin-loss and Baroness David. I think that Amendment No. 33 has great complications. It there says that there should be somebody belonging to the medical profession and a governor who is himself handicapped. This would be difficult or impossible if that person happened to be mentally handicapped and associated
686
with a mentally handicapped school. However, Amendment No. 27A is flexible. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept it. It is common sense; and those of your Lordships who have handicapped children know that it is the people who have had first-hand experience who really understand the problems. I am absolutely certain that this is one of the things with which Warnock would agree.
Baroness D'ARCY de KNAYTH: May I say a few words to my noble friend's amendment? We covered the arguments fairly fully in the previous amendment about the advantages of representations on governing bodies of people with day-to-day experience of disabled people. The noble Baroness's usual argument about waiting for Warnock surely is not applicaable here. Maintained schools are already referred to in subsection (6). I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can accept this mild and sensible amendment. It is a glorious opportunity for her to show willing by accepting this amendment. I warmly support it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I want to urge the Government, whenever they are asked to do anything sensible, not to say that they cannot do it. This is what one is always advised when in Government. One is always told, from the draftsman's point of view, that one must not say anything in case it implies the opposite somewhere else. Everybody knows that this is complete nonsense. Just as over the industry matter—which I hope the noble Lord will bring up again at Report—this is an entirely new aspect, one which has never before been in an Education Bill. It is sensible to bring to the attention of governing bodies and local authorities. It makes complete sense. I hope that the Government will resist the advice which I am absolutely sure they are being given: that by putting this amendment in they may create difficulties concerning somebody else later on. I believe this to be foolish, untrue and unworthy of them.
Lord HYLTON: In the interests of short speeches, may I just say that the presence in your Lordships' House of the "mobile Bench ", so-called, and the invaluable help we get from them on so many occasions, is a very strong argument for deciding in favour of this amendment.
Lord PARRY: I would wish to associate myself enthusiastically and, entirely uncharacteristically, formally.
Lord HEYCOCK: I should like to support the amendment by just illustrating one point very clearly. There was a physically handicapped boy we got into our secondary school and, through careful teaching at the school, the lad eventually went to university, where he obtained a degree. We got him teaching at our physically handicapped school in Penarth; and I want to say that it was an inspiration to those handicapped people, to believe that there was one, at least, who, by courage and endurance and with the assistance of others, was able to overcome his handicap. I am certain that by supporting this amendment we shall be doing something at least for the handicapped. We probably built the first school in the whole country in Penarth, making a broad basis for the physically handicapped child. I am certain in my own mind that having people who arc connected with the handicapped and people who have associations with the school, will make a contribution, and it will be an inspiration to all those who are in the school.
Lord SEGAL: I think it would be a very gracious act indeed if the Government, by way of a change, would see their way to accepting this amendment. It is so eminently reasonable, and I cannot imagine anyone possibly finding sufficient grounds for refusing it. After all, the wording is so moderately expressed; it is not mandatory in any way but simply asks that local authorities, when appointing governors, should "have regard to the desirability". Could any amendment be more reasonably phrased? I think it would be a welcome change of attitude on the part of the Government if they would see their way for once to accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is phrased.
Baroness DAVID: Noble Lords will have noticed, and indeed it has been mentioned, that I am a signatory to Amendment No. 33, which covers quite a lot of the same ground that we have been debating. I would be very willing to accept that this amendment is more flexible and better worded; so if the other signatories to Amendment No. 33 are willing, 1 would certainly withdraw that
688
amendment in favour of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and would be very pleased to support it.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I have of course listened very carefully to all the arguments that have been put up on this amendment. May I say right away that the Warnock proposals do not in fact apply to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, would appreciate when I made this point earlier that in fact we have included maintained special schools in the governing body provisions under this clause. What we were talking about before were the non-maintained special schools; and that is a quite separate issue, one which would come under our proposals that we hope to present to Parliament later in the form of a Bill concerned with the Warnock Report.
I find myself in a very great dilemma because the arguments that have been put on this case are in fact the reverse of the arguments that were put earlier on the case about the non-maintained schools. If I understood the argument correctly from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about non-maintained schools, one of the reasons he was so concerned that they were not included in the Bill—a point that I and the Government understood—was that he felt they were being treated differently from other schools. We are treating maintained special schools in precisely the same way as all other schools. There is no difference in what we arc saying about maintained special schools, and we have gone as far as we can to deal with the whole question of hospital schools. We have done this, not because there is some trick, because we arc trying to do something different or peculiar, or because of something that we have suddenly thought of, but because we have taken on board the argument that was so well put, time and again, by those who take a great interest in this subject.
I am not at all trying to score a debating point here. I have listened so often to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, arguing about special education and the needs of the handicapped. If there is one point which has come through very clearly on every

689
occasion, it is that they should not be treated, in so far as it is humanly possible, in any way other than the way in which everybody else is treated. In order to make this point, the Government have written into the Bill that special schools should be treated in precisely the same way as others, and now that we have done this we are under great pressure to say "Treat them differently. "That is why I am in a dilemma.
Lord PARRY: Will the noble Baroness give way? She is very kind. In fact, what she says is not the case. The argument that is being put is that they should be treated exactly alike. If the noble Baroness is saying that there should not be a handicapped person on the governing body of an ordinary school, then she has a point. But what we are saying is that as the fit and the healthy are put on the governing bodies of schools attended by the fit and the healthy, so it is correct that someone with knowledge of not being fit and healthy should be on the governing body of the school for such children.
Baroness YOUNG: That is a very splendid Welsh argument.
Lord PARRY: I thought it was Greek logic.
Baroness YOUNG: I am not sure that I would put it in that way. However, at this time of night I do not intend to debate Greek logic. In setting out all our proposals about government, we have said that there should be two parents and two teachers and this will apply to special schools. There would be two parents of children in the school, who would obviously have first-hand and close experience of dealing with their own handicapped children who are in the school. There would also be two teachers of the special school; again, two persons with close and very detailed knowledge of the school.
If we were to accept this amendment we should, in principle, be treating special schools differently because, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, we should, in fact, be saying that whereas, for want of a better term, ordinary schools would have just two parents and two teachers, special schools would have not
690
only two parents and two teachers, but probably,
"!one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons "—
which I should have thought the two teachers would have—
" and of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons".
With the exception of a disabled person on the governing body, either teachers or parents would meet the cases that have been put up.
This is why I think that the Committee needs to consider very carefully whether we want to break the principle of treating special schools in precisely the same way as we have treated other schools. I hesitate, because I suppose that I shall be accused of being thoughtless over this, but this is a matter to which I have given a great deal of thought and I have listened to the House on a good many occasions. But I am not at all convinced that it would be right at this stage, at the beginning, to treat special schools differently.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: May I put another Welsh point to the noble Baroness? She said, quite rightly, that special schools should be treated in precisely the same way as other schools. That will be correct if the Government are expecting, as they obviously are, to have an unamended Bill at the end of the day. But if the noble Baroness had listened to and conceded some of the points that have been put on previous amendments, then she would have been able to say, "Yes, of course we can concede this amendment, because the special schools will then be treated in exactly the same way as the other schools".
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask the noble Baroness about something which has crossed my mind? Some of the special schools are very small. Will it not be rather complicated if they have only two teachers? Some of them perhaps have only two teachers.
Baroness YOUNG: The answer to that question is that our intention, where possible, is that there should always be two teachers. Perhaps I should write to the noble Baroness if there were to be special schools of a smaller size than that, but it would be our intention that every

691
special school should be treated in precisely the same way. Because, in the case of small special schools, it might seem rather different, one would not want to group them as one would group small primary schools where the same question arises and where it has been decided to group the primary schools. Small special schools would be treated on their own.
Lord HEYCOCK: One accepts the philosophy of trying to educate the children within a normal school, because it is done with partially deaf children and with a variety of other children. But there are special schools; one cannot call them by any other name. There are schools for the mentally and the physically handicapped. There is a variety of handicaps. Therefore, they are schools which are distinct and different. We are saying that, because of the character and nature of these special schools, they should have representation on the governing body that is distinctly related to that school. They are in a special category. I have been the governor and chairman of mentally and physically handicapped schools and I know what an inspiration it has been to handicapped people. The psychological importance is that the handicapped will go into the school and take the same responsibilities as a person who is not handicapped.
This acts as an inspiration to the children who will have to face life afterwards and come to terms with being mentally or physically handicapped. Even if they are treated in the same way as normal maintained schools, they are still special schools with special handicap difficulties to overcome. We cannot get away from the environment of the school. To concede this would do nothing to the maintained school. Having been defeated on two amendments, I should welcome the passing of this amendment because of the special nature of these schools.
Lord VAIZEY: I can appreciate that the noble Baroness is getting exasperated with the physically handicapped, but I would suggest respectfully that the principle she is holding is different from the one I am holding. Her principle seems to be uniformity. My principle is t hat the reason why the governing
692
bodies are being strengthened with parents and teachers is because of experience. We want the governing bodies to be strong because they draw from a great variety of experience in society, particularly from people who are deeply involved in the schools. Therefore, when one gets to particular schools with special problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has just mentioned, it only makes sense to add to the volume of experience which is present on the governing body this particular kind of experience. Furthermore, my noble friends and I are suggesting that the nature of this experience, the experience of the handicap itself, is of crucial importance to the representative nature of the governing body: to move the special schools from being something which is provided by society for people with handicaps to the kind of provision which handicapped people are making for themselves. I shall not press the amendment, but I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will think more carefully, because I shall certainly want to raise the matter again at Report.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment he ought to take some notice of the feelings on this side of the Committee. I thought that the argument put forward by the noble Baroness was extremely ingenious, but not in fact correct. If you have parents of disabled children, two of them, among your governors they may or may not be suitable to give other people advice on how to deal with other children. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that they will be suitable. If they are suitable—this is a permissive, not a mandatory amendment—there is no need to do more than pay attention. But the idea that any two parents of disabled children are able to give the kind of advice and the kind of practical help that is required in special schools seems to me to be purely wrong. As the noble Baroness is saying in essence that she agrees with us that it is already doing it, I think it would be comforting to us if she would look at this again. I do not believe she is already doing it.
Baroness DAVID: Before the noble Baroness answers that, I should like to ask a question. I understand from what she said before, and also when we had a

693
Statement on the Warnock Report, that the conclusions of that report were on the whole accepted by the Government. The suggestion to have a disabled person on the governing body of a special school comes in the Warnock Report, and I should like to know whether the noble Baroness accepts that idea.
Baroness YOUNG: First, I should like to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. In fact, I realise of course the question she was asking. Where it is a small special school under the provisions of Clause 2(7) there would only be one teacher governor, because it has fewer than 300 pupils. That would be the position. I am sorry that I misled her and I wish to correct that right away.
On the second point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on the Warnock proposals, it is true that among the many proposals that were made there was a suggestion that on the governing body there should be either someone who was handicapped or who had experience of handicap. This would arise when we speak about the Warnock Report, and I would respectfully suggest that what we are trying to do at this point in this Bill is to go as far as we can with regard to the school governing proposals with respect to special schools. This was not a debating point. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may think it was an ingenious argument that I said they should be treated in the same way.—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: An ingenious mind, anyway.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall take it as a compliment that he thinks I am sufficiently clever to think of it, but, odd as it may seem to him and to other noble Lords opposite, I and my colleagues frequently listen to what is said in this House. We listen particularly to the experts, of whom there are a great many—and I do not number myself as an expert on this subject but as somebody who is just very interested in it and particularly on the question of handicapped children and handicapped adults. There are many people in the House who know a great deal about it and one theme which has run like a common thread throughout it is the idea that everybody should be treated as far as possible in the same way.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, now accuses me of asking for uniformity. I thought the idea was that everybody should have equal treatment; if that is equated with uniformity, so be it. In fact, although the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said that he will not press this amendment to a Division I will look at it again. I cannot make a promise because in fact we are trying to treat special schools in exactly the same way as the others, but in view of the very great feelings expressed in all parts of the Committee on this matter I will take it back and look at it again.
Lord VAIZEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27B not moved.]
9.49 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 28.
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("three hundred") and insert ("one hundred and eighty").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend that part of the Bill which at present says that the governing body of a county or voluntary school or a special school maintained by a local education authority shall, if the school has less than 300 registered pupils, include at least one and in any other case at least two, teacher governors; that is to say, persons who are elected by teachers at the school and are themselves such teachers at the time when they are elected.
This provision would be quite unexceptional if it were not for the fact that we have a fair certainty that there will be a dramatic drop in the rolls of primary schools over the next few years and if this clause is implemented it could lead to problems, particularly in the teaching profession. The medium size of primary schools within five years will be about 180, and if the cut-off point is made at 300 pupils this will mean that the majority of primary schools will have a minimum of only one teacher governor. This amendment places the cut-off point at a more appropriate level and ensures that for the small schools the minimum number of parents is no more than that for teacher governors. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said. Our aim in setting the size of school below which the minimum number of elected teacher governors need only be one rather than two was twofold: to allow for the practical difficulties of electing two governors from a very small teaching staff in the smallest schools, and to make it possible to keep down the overall size of the governing body in such schools. The figure of 300 was chosen not because LEAs wanted to be able to keep teacher governor numbers down in the larger schools falling below it, but to help the voluntary school authorities to keep down the overall size of their governing bodies. In their case the addition of a teacher means the addition of another foundation governor as well to keep their majority at the level set out in subsection (4). In
696
practice there will be two members of staff on the governing body of most of these schools, because in addition to the elected teacher governor there will also be the head teacher.
The Earl of SWINTON: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister a question? This seems the right time to do it. I certainly do not agree with the amendment. I am not at all sure that I agree with the Government, either. There has been a lot of talk about small schools, and as far as I can make out it is agreed on all sides that this means those with under 300 pupils. In my own authority we have only 36 out of a total of 433 primary schools with more than 300 children. We even have 5 secondary schools out of 69 with fewer than 300 on the roll, and I know that we do not have a single special school with more than 300 pupils or anything like it. A great many of our primary schools are two teacher schools. The head can choose whether he or she wishes to be a governor under the new legislation. What about the wretched assistants? So far as I can make out, if the head says that he does not want to be a governor the assistant has jolly well got to be, whether he wants to be or not. What sort of punishment will be inflicted on them if they decide they do not want to be a governor?
Lord BELLWIN: I should have thought the answer really is twofold. First of all, there is the point I made about the head teacher, and secondly, when you start to get to the really small schools you start to talk about grouping. I should have thought that that was really the answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton. Either way, I think the point is still valid; either the head teacher or the grouping would be the answer.
The Earl of SWINTON: In large rural areas the schools are many miles apart. When it comes to grouping, first, the villages are not speaking, and, secondly, we are going to have a discussion on rural transport; and I cannot see how the governors will get to the meetings because there are no bus services and I do not think they could afford the petrol.
Lord BELLWIN: Of course, one could get grouping where you had a primary school and a smaller school on the same

697
site, as often does apply. Clearly, I have no easy, facile answer to my noble friend, but I still think the point is valid, namely, that the head teacher will in any case in most circumstances either be a governor or certainly be sitting in with the others.
Baroness DAVID: I think one of the reasons for having teacher governors was that they could say something which the head would not say. It was particularly to get a different viewpoint from that of the headmaster or headmistress.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My noble friend Lady David has made one of the two points I was going to make. The other point is that I am not convinced by the Minister's reply. A figure of 180 pupils with two teacher governors, even with the inclusion of a further foundation governor, would not necessarily make the governing body unwieldy. However, I shall not press my amendment.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I remind the Minister that none of the teacher associations is in favour of grouping?
Lord PARRY: In view of the fact that my noble friend is about to withdraw his amendment, it is occasionally nice to point out that there is not a monolithic structure on this side of the Committee either! I believe that the Committee feels that if it could get the size of schools down to 600, as a maximum and 300, as a positive effective step, then perhaps some of the problems of government of the schools might resolve themselves.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.56 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and one representative of the non-teaching staff").
The noble Lord said: I think that in modern schools—and many of us have had experience of them there should be on the council for the direction of the school and at staff meetings, the opportunity (and it may not arise all the time) to have a representative of the non-teaching staff. Those of us who have worked in various areas of education and who have had in particular to visit rural and country schools, know the importance of the non-teaching staff during winter time in remote areas which are likely to be snowed under, with children isolated and left in those schools to sleep the night. That happens in the moorlands of this country. I think that the non-teaching staff have a right to be considered and consulted and given special opportunities—nothing to do with the curriculum—concerning the running of the school. It could be left to the discretion of the head. I should like to move very simply that that matter be considered by the Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has said on this matter. If he looks further down Clause 2 he will see that subsection (10) would, of course, permit the inclusion of a representative of the non-teaching staff or any other person who was thought appropriate, to be a member of the school governing body. I think that he would find that if the school governors or the local education authority wished to include a representative from the non-teaching staff, they could do so under that particular subsection.
In saying that, it is important that the Committee should understand that governing bodies are not negotiating committees and that in most cases it is the local education authority who is the employer and who determines the conditions of service. We believe that the most effective way for non-teaching staff to contribute to the work of governors may well be through the proper consultative machinery of the type recommended in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Having said that, I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would in fact be met under subsection (10), if it were required, and I hope that he will

699
therefore feel that his amendment is not necessary.
Lord HEYCOCK: The situation is left completely open under subsection (10). Anyone could be appointed under that subsection—it is possible for a carthorse to drive through it. It is very clear. We, in some instances, have appointed members of the non-teaching staff. It is not a question of negotiation. When there is a matter pertaining to salaries and teacher posts as such, they are not permitted to be present when it is discussed. It is part of the statutory obligation which a local authority has when it administers governing bodies.
Let us take the example of a large comprehensive. It has a non-teaching staff of about 60 to 70, including the cleaners and the people who produce the school meals. Surely if you say that teachers and parents have a right, logically on the other side you should say that the non-teaching staff who are involved could bring, not necessarily the techniques of teaching, but the kind of social training which is part and parcel of their job into the atmosphere of the governing body. Therefore, to say that it could be done under that subsection, is not to face the fact very clearly, because anyone can be appointed under that subsection. Unless it is made obligatory upon the authority, they may not do it, but they will appoint someone under that subsection. I do not think that the answer which the noble Baroness has given is a clear one to the points that have been adduced by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek.
The Earl of SWINTON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, will withdraw this amendment. I have great respect for the noble Lord but I could not follow his reasoning on this at all. It is perhaps fair enough in a large comprehensive school where you have several to choose from, but the noble Lord cited the moorland schools. The moorland schools I know mostly have one or two teachers, and at the very most three. The one non-teaching member of the staff is the caretaker-cum-dinner lady, who is a most worthy person and the salt of the earth, but the last thing she wants to do is to become involved with the managing
700
body, even though, with all respect, she has a great deal to contribute to it. I rather think that the noble Lord took a wrong example of the schools to which to go.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am grateful for the interjection of the noble Earl, but if he read the amendment he would see that it does not just say "three teachers "; it says "the governing body". The governing body of a school does not comprise just the teachers. It was, therefore, the governing body of a county or voluntary school or of a special school maintained by a local education authority. I simply cited the rural areas; the comprehensives also have their problems. However, I do not want to delay the Committee. The vast experience of the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has been mentioned. The noble Baroness has pointed out the place where you can drive a gambo through; she should know that a gambo is a Welsh hay cart. Despite that, the spirit of the Committee will have effused, or perhaps I should say suffused, this Committee. Consequently, I believe that it would be wise at this moment to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and representatives of the local community").
The noble Lord said: This is another hay cart! What are we asking? The amendment reads:
" Page 3, line 7, at end insert (` and representatives of the local community ')."
Am I to be told that there are opportunities elsewhere for representatives of the local community to be appointed?—because where does a community begin and where does it end? How many miles must one be from the focal point of a school for the boundaries of a community to end? I suppose that it would be the pool from which students and pupils are drawn. I believe there is a case to get the community spirit there and to have a member of the community here. It could be parents or others who may have a local interest in the school. One could talk for an hour and only go round the same

701
point, which is unnecessary with a wise Committee such as this. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: It is very good of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to enlarge my vocabulary. I shall certainly read Hansard with greater interest tomorrow to find out what this new word is. I am not at all clear what the noble Lord means by a representative of the local community, because I should have thought that was exactly what a local councillor was—a representative of the local community—and that is what he or she is, in fact, elected to do. I see that the noble Lord, Lord James, is no longer in his place. I tremble to think how he would have summed up this particular amendment. However, I should not have thought that it was necessary. The local councillors who are representatives of the local community will clearly be on school governing bodies, and certainly parents, who will be members of the local community, and, in many instances teachers also. Therefore, it is not necessary to write it into the Bill.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment. It seems to me almost meaningless. People who are representative of local communities arc the parish and district councillors, whom we are already agreed should be on this body.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think the noble Viscount has a point. The Committee have heard my point. Having heard both sides, I do not think it is as important as I may have thought. I shall reserve my powers for more powerful amendments. In view of that I will willingly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.6 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and schools which contain children who have passed their 15th birthday shall have one pupil governor").
The noble Baroness said: A secondary school cannot fulfil its educational duties without full co-operation between the pupils, staff and parents. This co-operation can best be achieved through the governing bodies, whose members meet
702
regularly to consider the school's policy, progress and problems. The appointment of pupil governors would widen the viewpoint of the adult governors in many different fields, which would include the school curriculum, job selection and training, and relations with the local community. These appointments would also help the pupil governors to understand the viewpoint of their parents and teachers on a wide variety of matters concerned with their educational needs.
This amendment does not say that pupil governors would undertake all the duties of adult governors. I would suggest that they should not be members of committees that appoint staff, and that they should not be present when the suspension of pupils is under consideration. Nevertheless, although pupil governors would not be present when decisions were taken relating to the appointment of staff or the suspension of pupils, the judgments of the adult members of the governing body would be wiser than they might otherwise have been had they not had on many occasions the opportunity of hearing the viewpoint of pupil governors. I beg to move.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I have a daughter coming up for 15 who has a great many contemporaries of the same age. They are very mixed up, very immature, and very busy studying for their O-levels. Had the noble Baroness put down a pupil representative of sixth-form age, when they are doing A-levels and have only three subjects with which to contend, I might have thought differently.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The Committee will hardly be surprised if I say that I agree with my noble friend Lady Stewart of Alvechurch. I have been doing so for some time. May I first refer to the points raised by the noble Baroness. The amendment would leave it for the pupils themselves to decide which pupils would be chosen, and of course they could not compel a pupil who said: "I am too busy. I have my work to do." I think you would find that the pupils chosen would be those who could take it on, and I think they would do it well.
I have tried to look at this in a historical perspective. It has always been part of

703
the tradition of English education that we felt that schools ought not to concentrate too narrowly on intellectual attainment, important though that is, but that a school was intended also to be one of the forces that developed the character and general abilities of a child, enabled that child to play a full part in the society in which it was going to live, and, added to that, helped him to be the kind of person who would improve that society. What was the purpose historically in the old days of the prefectorial system at the public schools? It was to train an upper class who would rule an empire and who, in time of war, would give the lead on the battlefield. It served in that context the purpose it was intended to serve.
But nowadays people do not go out from schools to rule an empire, nor is it assumed that leadership in time of war is confined to the upper classes. We have to ask, then, what kind of qualities are appropriate to the kind of society we live in today, and they are surely the kind of qualities comprised in the capacity to listen to argument, to respect one's fellows, to consider when something has been proved and when it has not, and generally to take part in a reasoning, arguing and democratic society. There is only one way to learn that, and that is to take part in it.
Some schools have already experimented successfully with this, so it is not a leap in the dark by any means, and in my view the Government should be helpful in this matter. They have not been very accommodating so far; just once or twice the Government have given about a quarter of an inch. They now have a chance to accept on a more generous scale the arguments that have been put forward and to agree to an amendment which will of itself be of a generous kind.
One of the first things said to me when I was a young teacher by a senior colleague was, "You can never teach people something they do not want to know ", and of course the great art of teaching is to try to persuade them to want to know. How one does that varies from pupil to pupil and perhaps from subject to subject. This is one way of getting the pupils to see that school, after all, is really meant for them and not just for the teachers, the education officers and so on. It is
704
imaginative, it has been shown to be practical and the Government should take a step forward.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I support the amendment because it has great possibilities for the Opposition. If we take the example that has been set in Iran, these pupils might kidnap the Ministers on the Government Front Bench and hold them until the whole Bill is settled, and then we on this side of the Committee win.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Perhaps I may give the Committee the benefit of the experience I had during the deliberations of the Taylor Committee. We spent much time discussing this matter—visiting schools and discussing it with students—and we got a very mixed reception. There were sixth form pupils who felt it would be a good thing for them to be on governing bodies, while others thought it would not be a good idea and they felt that the best method would be for them to work through schools councils and be observers at governors' meetings rather than be participants and full members of governing bodies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said, there were a number of young people who were very mixed up at the age of 15. I say with respect to my colleagues on that committee that I found that they, too, were very mixed up on this one. However, in true British style, we decided to compromise. We compromised by saying that when the Government of the day reduced the age of majority from 18 to 16, at that time they should be members of governing bodies, but not until then, and that until that time they should be just observers.
That was our decision after spending more time than your Lordships, with respect, are spending on the subject tonight. I urge the Committee to be very careful about the amendment because it could have repercussions in many ways. To those who have said that schools have tried this—in particular I know that Sheffield has tried it, and there they have minors on governing bodies—I say that if anybody wanted to challenge a decision of a governing body with minors on it, then, according to the 1944 Act (I am not a lawyer but I spent a good deal of time working on the 1944 Act) those decisions would be ultra vires.
The Earl of SWINTON: It cannot be said that the party opposite has the sole right for a noble husband to support a noble wife. I do not always agree with mine, which is why she sits on the Cross-Benches and I sit firmly on this side of the House, but I agree with her on this point. Very sensible words have been spoken by Lord Taylor opposite. This amendment one must be very wary of. Lord Stewart made much about the prefectorial system. That is the way to do it. There are prefectorial systems within the maintained system which have much more to be said for them than the very nasty prefectorial system which was in operation when I was at school, when boys flogged other boys. Thank God, nothing like that happens in a State school. There are plenty of opportunities for older pupils to shine at that and to contribute to school councils, but I do not think that the right thing to do is to put them on governing bodies.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: With the experience of Lord Taylor it is difficult to disagree. My experience in regard to matters concerning school governing bodies is much less than his, except through the children I have had at State schools. I detect in the debate something of which I have a great deal of experience; that is, the idea that the student body is too mixed up and too immature and that you must be very careful of letting them in. I know that trap, because I have been round it a number of times in the universities. It was said that graduate students must not come on to committees of the college and of the London School of Economics. Then it was said about undergraduate students. I hope Lord Stewart, in dealing with this amendment, will press the principle upon the Government although the age is set too low in the wording that is before the Committee.
Between the age of 16 and 17 young people today are not so different from the students of 18 with whom I live. When you bring them on to the committees and the important governing bodies two things happen. First, they respond like ordinary human beings: they find that it is very boring and tend not to come as many times as they thought they would. Secondly, when crises arise—and in the universities, as the noble Baroness knows, we have recently experienced, and are
706
about to experience, even more of those—it is a new dimension to university life to know that the demonstrations of your students will not be aimed against you who are not responsible for the policies of the Government, but on a united basis to join with the staff in dealing with the problems and, if need be, to demonstrate against the Government whose responsibility it is. I do not believe it would be very different in schools if the right age were found.
I appreciate that it may be that the wording of this amendment may set it too low. I would hope that the Government would accept the spirit of this amendment, not with the idea that it would produce anything like the prefectorial system, a notion which would make me vote against it under ally circumstances whatsoever, but in the hope that it would produce among the lower and upper sixth formers the same kind of benefits which have been found in higher education from bringing students not so much older into the committees and governing bodies of those institutions.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I have had a certain amount of experience of dealing with institutions where there are students of all ages. One of the most fascinating ironies of this debate has been to hear Lord Stewart lauding the 19th-century prefectorial system as a form of governing body. I go far to the left of Lord Stewart as regards education. I have always regarded the prefectorial system—because the young always tend to be rather cruel to each other—as one of the greater mistakes of the great 19th-century educators and one whose influence I have tried to mitigate in my own professional career. But, still, he has got a point. The only thing is that it has got nothing to do with the functions of the governing body. It sounds fun but it has nothing to do with being a governing body.
In trying to run a school what one does is to bring the mature young people, whether they are 15 or 17, into collaboration with one and tell them what one's plans are, ask them for their views and have all sorts of informal contacts. But one spoils that by making this a formal business. Could one condemn them to anything worse than sitting on the committee? I have said to students at university, "What an ambition ! Haven't

707
you anything better to do with your lives? Haven't you got books to read or girl friends to take out or games to play? For heaven's sake, you want to sit on committees? I am paid for it; you are not. "
What one is doing is to take these young people and make them do something they do not fully understand or appreciate, because they cannot put it against the whole background of administration. When they are doing it they cannot think of Tocqueville or someone like that, as we do. It becomes fun when one can do that. It is fun to manipulate, but not for them. We are encouraging young people to take on responsibilities. I do not think they are too great for them; but they seem just a waste of time for those people at that young, splendid age when life ought to be exciting, when they ought to be reading stuff for the first time, not sitting listening to old men talking about the rules of the bicycle shed. I feel this very strongly indeed, as noble Lords may gather.
The great thing is the poverty of the argument that is produced—the 19th century prefect system. Gracious me! not really, now. Leave them alone. Let them grow. Let us do the dull jobs we are paid for, and at the same time talk to them all the time about our jobs and their jobs and their work as human beings, not as members of a committee.
10.22 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I must reply to that. In the various educational experiences I have had I have never been a headmaster, and the difficulty I have had with headmasters all my life is to get them to listen to what one is actually saying. The point I was arguing was this; I thought it was plain enough. The old public school prefectorial system was designed to support an imperialist, aristocratic society, and in that context it did what it was intended to do. I am pointing out that today we do not live in that kind of society, but we have the same problem of getting the co-operation of young people in making the kind of society we live in work well.
One of the things that society requires is the very opposite of the old aristocratic
708
and imperialist tradition. It is a democratic tradition and a tradition of showing equal respect to all other human beings. One of the ways in which one learns that is by arguing about practical matters that are within one's experience. Many of the problems which governors discuss are within the experience of children of this age and they can make useful contributions. The suggestion that we are dooming them all to a boring existence is based on the assumption that they will spend their whole time at governors' meetings. It is simply one of the experiences in a varied life. They would also read books, play games and so on. This kind of experience of being able to listen to an argument and to weigh up the best way of handling a problem when one cannot get all one wants is useful and interesting. The experience of schools which have tried it has shown that to be so.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn referred to the gloomy prognostications about what would happen when one brought students into the governments of universities. Incidentally, that was a suggestion made by Adam Smith in the year 1776 when he wrote the Wealth of Nations, and we have at last caught up with him. I am suggesting that this proposal is suitable to the kind of society in which we now live. It is something the value of which has already been shown by experience.
I wish to add one final point. The amendment refers to schools which contain children who have passed their 15th birthday. It does not say or imply that all the people they choose would be merely 15year-olds. Indeed, the probability is overwhelmingly the opposite: that they would choose the older and more experienced among their number. So the Committee need not be worried about a governing body being composed exclusively of 15year-olds. It would include older pupils, who throughout our education history have been considered capable of bearing responsibilities of some kind. I believe that the amendment deserves better consideration than the Government have so far given it.
Lord PARRY: The noble Lord on the Front Bench made a valuable qualification towards the end of his speech, much of which I totally agree with. It goes without

709
saying that I support him in the contentions that he has made; I have done so throughout the debate, and shall continue to do so until the end of consideration of this amendment. I should like to be totally, 100 per cent., in support of what has been said, but it seems to me that the qualification is extraordinarily important, particularly in view of the case that the Taylor Report made clear—the question of the legal right of those aged between 15-plus and 18 to participate in judgments such as come before governors. Therefore, until the vote in a democracy is available to someone aged 15-plus, as opposed to 18, he cannot be, in the sense that has been canvassed, a full participant in the democracy. Such young people have to be learners at various stages towards it. I accept totally the implication in the amendment. However, I do not accept what the amendment does in defining the matter to those aged 15-plus. If the principle of the amendment can be enshrined, I could go with it—but not in its present form.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: May I say a few words in favour of the amendment, which has had a rather cool reception from certain quarters. I have been a member of a governing body which included pupil governors, and it worked extremely well. They were usually a bit shy to start with, but then they warmed up and were extremely interesting. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, and the point about the legal rights, I remember that there were problems when it was decided to have pupil governors, but the matter was discussed with great care. I cannot quite remember what the solution was, but the legal department of the county council agreed that it was all right to have pupil governors and there has not been any trouble.
We talk a lot today about political education and so on. If these young people are to be ready to vote at 18, and are to know what is going on, it would be quite good for them to mix with other people whom we are told are so political; it is said that many governing bodies are political affairs. This might be quite an education for the young people. I hope that people will not be quite so frightened of this proposal as they appear to be. I
710
repeat what my noble friend has said: that the amendment refers to those who have passed their 15th birthday; they could be 16, 17, or even 18. I hope that noble Lords will now feel a little more warmly towards the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: In the provisions that we have made on school government there is nothing whatever to prevent any authority that wishes to have pupil governors, from putting them on governing bodies. The provisions have been so drawn as to allow this. It is for the education authority to decide in its own local circumstances whether or not there should be pupil governors on the governing body of a school. We left it in this way, and I must say that I was surprised when I saw this amendment because it is directly contrary to the view taken by the last Administration in the consideration of their Education Bill in Committee last year, when they did not support this proposal.
I was not going to add anything after I had listend to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who in the course of his committee proceedings must have considered with great care the whole question of having pupil governors on governing bodies. However, it might be helpful for me to clear up the legal position on this matter. The department's present understanding is that the question whether the common law permits minors to be appointed as school governors is in fact unsettled, although it is likely that minors may be appointed as governors of county schools. Any legal uncertainties that there are have not prevented some 17 local education authorities from appointing pupil governors for county schools, and we consider that the best course is to leave the decision as to whether to appoint pupil governors for county schools to local education authorities in accordance with their own interpretation of the law. This, I think, would entirely accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said on this matter.
However—and this is an important point—even if the law on this matter were to be clarified, this would not alter the fact that pupil governors would, like all governors, be open to potential legal

711
liabilities—for example, for negligence. These issues are greater with regard to voluntary schools, where the governors have greater responsibilities in respect of school premises, and, in particular, aided and special agreement schools; and even if the law permitted minors to be governors of voluntary schools it would not be right, we believe, for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for making the instruments of government for voluntary schools, to provide for the appointment of pupil government and so expose minors to these risks, however small in practice.
I therefore think that there is a very important distinction between the governing bodies of county schools and the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would recognise is this particular context. What I am saying to the Committee is that whereas it would be perfectly possible for a local education authority to appoint pupil governors to a county school, the situation would be quite different in an aided or special agreement school, and therefore we could not accept this amendment as it stands. In fact, it runs counter to our principles, which we have been over many times this evening and which I will not reiterate once again.
What I do think is important—and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will agree—is training school pupils in responsibility, which I think was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, raised in connection with the prefectorial system of the past, and which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord James, when he said that he consulted his senior pupils about all matters. It is, I think, important for the the older pupils, particularly, to be treated in this way, to have their opinions asked and to be consulted; and I am bound to say from my own personal experience of being a governor of a school in which there was a school council which operated really very effectively both in training children in responsibilities and in enabling them to express an opinion in a democratic set-up, that this seems to me a very valuable adjunct to school life. Again, it is not one which we would wish in any way to prescribe for all schools, but it is one which I would commend to the Committee as something which I think would meet the point about responsibilities without having to go as far as the appointment of pupils as school governors.
10.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Seear, B.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Birk, B.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Blease, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Strauss, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Winstanley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Avon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bellwin, L.

Burton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Armstrong, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cathcart, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Davidson, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

St. Just, L.

Digby, L.

Kilmany, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandford, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dundonald, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Savile, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spens, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Falmouth, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gainford, L.

Middleton, L.

Suffield, L.

Galloway, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Morris, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gowrie, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vickers, B.

Hacking, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Haig, E.

Onslow, E.

Westbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylcbone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.42 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a county or voluntary school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, governors appointed from members of the community which is served by the school, including at least one representative each of trade unions and employers.").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords who heard the news at midday today will agree that this amendment contains a very good point. We were told in that news bulletin that one school is using its pupils after school to tidy up and is paying them 90p per hour. In another case the payment is 40 or 50p. I shall not name the local authority; there is no point in my being vindictive or jumping to conclusions. However, trade union groups are beginning to protest at this action because it takes jobs out of the hands of public employees. Consequently, that action has caused some acerbity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, supported by the talent and nobility of the
714
noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, suggested that I should examine subsection (10) which reads:
" Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the inclusion in the governing body of any school of governors additional to those required by this section".
That means to me that a local education authority may, by arrangement. "May "—that is all we are asking. It is not put in the imperative mood, it is subjunctive. It says:
"!may make an arrangement for the constitution of a body for any two or more schools maintained!".
Baroness DAVID: That is the wrong part of the Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thought there was something funny about that. Let us go back. I quoted correctly subsection (10). Now let us get to the subsection that I should be reading:
" The governing body of a county or voluntary school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, governors appointed from members of the community which is served by the school, including at least one representative each of trade unions and employers".
I take it that subsection (10) could make that possible. I am on fertile soil. As

715
my grandfather used to say to me when I was a little boy, his garden was so fertile that if he knocked a six-inch nail in the ground in the spring, it came up a crowbar in the summer.
I do not see how the noble Baroness can get out of this one, because she has already conceded that what I asked before could be applied under subsection (10). I am asking clearly this time that representatives of trade unions and/or the employers may be permitted. At this late hour, without flourishing the speech any further down the corridors of time, I will ask the noble Baroness to look at this point with care, because I believe that it is constructive and helpful, and could maintain good relationships in the community with the employers and with the trade union movement. It would not encourage the employment of pupils after school, cleaning up the schools, dusting, dealing with the drains and cleaning the windows, as was reported today on the radio to be taking place. I will leave it at that, and ask the noble Baroness what she thinks of this amendment.
Lord MISHCON: Before the Minister rises, I wonder whether I might add to the very precise speech just made by my noble friend. He did, at the very end, say something that I am sure he would want to correct. Knowing him as I do, and his wish always to be correct, may I point it out to him? He read out "trade union and/or employers". I am sure that he did not mean to add the word "or". Therefore it is "trade unions and employers".
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask whether the noble Lord also meant "shall "or "may"? In this amendment it says—
" shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned!".
I have sat on a board of visitors of a borstal for years, and we have always tried very hard to have a trade union member. The one we had from Leeds was a splendid and popular man. The only trouble was that he did not stay very long because he just could not spare the time. I also sit on a community health council, and the trade union representative we have there has great problems because he loses wages if he takes time off work. If
716
the noble Lord presses his amendment, perhaps he could see that their costs are covered, and that they do not lose out on their wages.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. But I am dominated by the logic of subsection (10). That says:
" Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the inclusion in the governing body of any school of governors additional to those required by this section".
These are additional to those required by this clause: namely, representatives of the trade unions and the employers. The word "shall "came there. I inserted the "may "and said I was not putting it in the imperative but in the subjunctive.
Baroness YOUNG: I think I am quoting the noble Lord, Lord Davies, exactly when I recall that he said, "I am dominated by the logic of this amendment "—and I only wish really that he was. The truth is that I am not sure that he is, from what he has said. It is in fact not a permissive power he is asking for because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has quite rightly pointed out, his amendment says "shall include "; so this is not permissive but obligatory in this sense.
This is not an amendment that the Government could accept, for all the reasons we have had on a series of amendments before, but the noble Lord is quite right in saying that subsection (10), which has been deliberately written as it is. allows the inclusion of other governors, as I have tried to explain on other occasions. For the reasons I have advanced on a number of discussions on the school governing bodies, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept this amendment but that, by leaving local education authorities free to appoint other than the two parents and two teachers, it would be perfectly possible to call on other people of the nature that he has described.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is a very neat answer from the noble Baroness, and really it is only saying what I said—that subsection (10) could cover it. I am willing to accept the spirit of the reply. In view of that and at this late hour, it would be cruel to go on any longer, seeing

717
how hard the noble Baroness has worked today. In view of that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: It seems to me, now that we have reached seven minutes to eleven o'clock, that there is not time to do justice to a further amendment tonight. If it is the wish of your Lordships, therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.

  LIFE PRISONERS: NUMBERS IN PRISON AFTER NINE OR 14 YEARS
  LIFE PRISONERS: NUMBERS IN PRISON AFTER NINE OR 14 YEARS
  LIFE PRISONERS IN SPECIAL HOSPITALS
  LIFE PRISONERS IN SPECIAL HOSPITALS
  DATA PROTECTION: LINDOP REPORT—CONSIDERATION
  DATA PROTECTION: LINDOP REPORT—CONSIDERATION
  AIR/SEA RESCUE MISSIONS: COST
  AIR/SEA RESCUE MISSIONS: COST
  ETHIOPIA: GAMBELA PROJECT AND EEC AID
  ETHIOPIA: GAMBELA PROJECT AND EEC AID