Sitting of 14 March 1980

Preamble
The House met at half—past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT
      Mr. David Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I had understood that this morning we would be considering the final stages of the Child Maintenance Orders (Annual up—rating and exemption) Bill, as amended in Standing Committee C. The House knows that that is an important Bill. It is not surprising that I have raised this point of order. The Bill concerns the responsibility of the Secretary of State for single—parent families. It ensures that liable relatives fulfil their responsibilities.
      No statement has been made by the Minister, the Leader of the House or the hon. Member responsible for the Bill. I do not understand why we are not discussing it—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the hon. Member responsible, is not moving his motion on the Bill today. There is business before the House, and we should consider that.
      Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Once a Bill has passed through the Committee stage, is it not the property of the House? Can one hon. Member decide to withdraw that Bill? I do not wish to quote from rumours, but rumour has it that the Leader of the House has referred the Bill to the Law Commissioners.
      1746
      If that is true, is it not a breach of his responsibility? Surely this issue concerns the Secretary of State for Social Services. Is it not permissible for another member of the Standing Committee to move a motion on the Bill? The Bill has been given a Second Reading and has passed through its Committee stage. It has been laid before the House for Report and Third Reading. Is it not true that an unpleasant trick has been cooked up at the expense of the tens of thousands of people who will benefit if the Bill is enacted?
      Mr. Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members will have studied the Votes and Proceedings. The hon. Member responsible for the Bill has a right to set the date at which he wishes it to be considered. That date has been made known to the House. The Bill is to be considered upon Friday 4 July. It is as simple as that. The business of the day is now before us.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having listened to your remarks, my point of order has become slightly different. I was responsible for ensuring that the Opposition Front Bench kept a brief on the Bill during Second Reading and in Committee. The Government consistently voted against the Bill in Committee. Until your statement, Mr. Speaker we had understood that the Bill had been withdrawn and referred to the Law Commission, not by the Secretary of State but by the Leader of the House. However, you have said that the hon. Member responsible for the Bill has the right to name the date upon which the Bill will be considered, and that he has named 4 July.
      Will the Government make a statement indicating whether the Bill has been referred to the Law Commission, or whether it will come back to the House? One cannot have both at the same time. The House will not know what to do. Tens of thousands of individuals will be affected by the Bill. They want to know its status. May we ask you to ensure that the Leader of the House will make a statement on this issue?
      Mr. Speaker: I cannot do that. The Votes and Proceedings have been published, and were dated Thursday 13 March. They state quite clearly that the Bill is to be considered on Friday 4 July.

      1747
      The hon. Member is therefore within his rights. The hon. Member who wished to set a date for his Bill would be angry if the House attempted to deny him that right.
      Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker—
      Mr. Speaker: There is not much that can be further to that point of order.
      Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House has been courteous enough to attend, it would be to the convenience of the House if he gave some explanation, so that the House and the country could understand what has happened.
      Mr. Speaker: I have explained to the House what has happened. The date has been changed. The first amendment is No. 98, which I understand is to be moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
      Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Member in charge of the Bill that is now to be heard on 4 July had originally introduced his Bill for consideration today. Are we to understand that an hon. Member may select as many different dates as he likes for the Second Reading of his Bill, or for its consideration on Report, and may change them as he likes?
      Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Gentleman gives notice to the House, he is within his rights, and notice has been given.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I realise, Mr. Speaker, that your discretion in the selection of amendments is absolute. However, amendment No. 98 does not deal with the issue that was decided by the House on the last vote on 29 February. It goes right back to a previous decision of the House in a previous debate. If the amendment had been placed on the Order Paper before 29 February it would without doubt have been grouped with the other amendments that were the subject of discussion at the end of the debate on 29 February.
      Surely the whole substance and intent of amendment No. 98 has been thoroughly debated and discussed in the House on a number of previous occasions. I submit that in this instance the Question
      1748
      should be put forthwith and not debated. If that is not done we may be deemed to be disregarding the intention and spirit of Standing Order No. 30(2) and the section of "Erskine May" under which the whole basis of the next group of amendments on the Order Paper was decided. This was shown, Mr. Speaker, by your reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) when he raised his point of order on 29 February.
      Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order. The only part that he left out was "With every respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging your ruling."When that is said, I sit up straight, because I realise that a challenge is coming. As the House expected of me. I spent a great deal of time this week considering the amendment. In my judgment the amendment should be called.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 2, line 8, after the words last left out insert—
      '(4) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
      "(4) A person forming his opinion for the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section who relies upon a factor other than or in addition to statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally shall be entitled to form such opinion as if the word 'substantially' were omitted from the said paragraph.".'.
      If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, far from challenging your ruling I gratefully accept it. I hope to demonstrate that the amendment is necessary. My reasons for tabling it are twofold. I hope that when the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) considers the first reason, if not both reasons, he will appreciate that there is a strong case for arguing why the amendment should have been selected and why it should be agreed to by the House.
      The last amendment to the Bill, which was carried before the House adjourned its consideration of the Bill, was amendment No. 7, which had the support of the promoter. It had the result of leaving out the whole of clause 1(4). That subsection provided that certain words should be substituted for section 1(4) of the original Act.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I cannot hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Silkin: I am doing my best against conversations on both sides of the House. I am willing to go back to where I started.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: Yes.
      Mr. Silkin: I was saying that the last amendment to which the House agreed before it adjourned its consideration of the Bill was amendment No. 7. That amendment had the effect of leaving out the whole of clause 1(4). That subsection did two things. First, it removed section 1(4) of the Abortion Act 1967—the principal Act. Secondly, it dealt with the statutory instrument procedure. Therefore, by accepting that amendment the House, whether it realised what it was doing or not, not only declined to allow the statutory instrument procedure but decided to leave untouched section 1(4) of the principal Act.
      That subsection provides for what might be called the emergency procedure. It provides that section 1(3)
      "and so much of subsection (1) as relates to the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to"—
      for example—
      "save the life … of the pregnant woman."
      Accordingly, that subsection remains in the Act, and provision remains in that measure for what is to happen in the event of an emergency termination. The next amendment to be considered by the House is No. 90, which seeks to amend clause 2. If we examine clause 2 and amendment No. 90 we find that they both deal with the emergency situation which is already dealt with by section 1(4) of the Abortion Act.
      Whether the amendment is carried, whether the Bill remains in its original form with clause 2 as it stands, or whether it is amended by leaving out a substantial part of the clause and inserting the words which, as I understand it, are now accepted by the promoter, the fact is that clause 2 will cover precisely the same subject as is already covered by section 1(4) of the Abortion Act. Therefore, we will have double provision for the same subject. There will be provision in the original Act and again in the Bill as it stands.
      1750
      If the Bill is passed we shall be sending to another place a measure that is complete nonsense. That is because it will be dealing with emergency termination in a way that appears in section 1 of the principal Act and in the new section that is proposed to be added as a result of clause 2.
      That is clearly something that the House could not contemplate. For that reason alone, it would be necessary to pass an amendment which would clear up that matter altogether. That argument could perhaps be described as technical, in the sense that the other place, if the Bill reaches it, could put the matter right. However, it is surely preferable for it to be put right in this place rather than to send to the other place a Bill that is so seriously technically defective.
      However, the purpose of the amendment is twofold, and its second purpose is one of substance. The hon. Member for Buckingham, possibly because he did not wait to hear the explanation, did not fully appreciate the substantial purpose of the new subsection. During out last discussion there was a great deal of talk about possible compromise. Indeed, the promoter of the Bill put his name to a number of amendments, indicating that, the House having passed the 24-week amendment, and subject to one or two differences, he would be prepared to jettison the rest of the Bill. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House who oppose a major part of the Bill seemed to be willing to accept that compromise, and expressed themselves in those terms.
      Unfortunately, a difficulty arose, because when the House debated the grouped amendments it voted for the word "substantially" by a majority of three votes, at the very last minute after it had heard the views of the Attorney-General as expressed by the Minister. I believe that it voted for that word on the basis that all the Minister and the Attorney-General had meant was that the use of the word "substantially" was a way of avoiding the difficulty in the minds of some Conservative Members—
      Mr. Leo Abse: And on this side.
      Mr. Silkin: Indeed, I must not forget my hon. Friend. That difficulty was created by what is known as the statistical argument. As I understand it, the

      1751
      argument means that there are doctors who say that statistically there is a substantial chance of any woman who undergoes a pregnancy suffering serious injury as a result, or even dying as a result. It is suggested—I do not know with what proof, but for the moment I am prepared to assume that it is so—that some doctors are prepared to sign a certificate on nothing other than the bare statistical proposition.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: That was the point that I raised during our last debate. Does the right hon. and learned Member agree that, although the majority of the House is perfectly happy with 24 weeks, the word "substantially" is extremely difficult to define? I asked that before we voted on the matter we should have the opinion of the Attorney-General on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs in Committee. That opinion may have been given upstairs by the Minister, but it is the sticking point of the whole Bill. As a former Law Officer, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his view about the word "substantially" and how it would affect the decision of a jury with regard to a doctor's conduct?
      Mr. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am obliged to him for putting that point so clearly, because it is one of very great importance.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the word "substantially" as it relates to the statistical argument applies only to terminations that are carried out at a very early stage? Before making up his mind, the doctor could not use the statistical argument if the termination were being carried out at a later stage. In other words, it would be wrong to accuse doctors of using the statistical argument in respect of all terminations that were carried out later than about 12 weeks, because the statistics would not bear out what the opponents of abortion feel is being done in the name of the statistical argument.
      Mr. Silkin: In relation to technical medical matters, especially those relating to statistics, I am entirely in the hands of my medical colleagues and I must accept what they say. But speaking as a
      1752
      layman, the important point—I can see the argument that is put forward by those who support the Bill—is that if a doctor bases his decision on nothing more than a statistical argument that applies to pregnancies generally and that has nothing to do with the circumstances of the particular patient, I believe that he is breaking the law. However, I can understand that supporters of the Bill may feel that there is a danger in that regard, and I can understand their wish to try to safeguard against that danger.
      Mr. Ennals: It was extremely helpful of my right hon. and learned Friend to give his own interpretation of the word "substantially" and its implications. He will recall, as I do, that in a very short intervention, and without giving any reasons, the Minister said:
      "I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and this is also his view."—[Official Report. 29 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1726.]
      We have not heard that view. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that before we reach a conclusion this morning we should have the view of the Attorney-General? After all, the Attorney-General is a member of the Government, and unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend is not. Before reaching a conclusion on this debate should not we have the views of the learned Attorney-General?
      Mr. Silkin: For the last six years I have always been of the opinion that the views of the Attorney-General are of assistance to the House in many circumstances where they are not called for. I certainly agree that they would be of assistance in this instance, where his views have been called for. They have been called for not only by my right hon. Friend today, but also on the last occasion, as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) pointed out. This is a matter of great difficulty.
      10 am
      If I may be allowed for a moment to be a substitute Attorney-General, I shall give my view on the effect of what we did on the previous occasion, not to go back on it but to explain the second purpose of the amendment. I have no doubt that a court, reading the principal Act and the Bill with the word "substantially" inserted, would take the view that the

      1753
      word does not mean merely minimal but something wide and considerable. If that is right, in failing to remove the word "substantially" in relation to the danger to a pregnant woman we produce the situation in which, in order for an abortion to be lawful, apart from the time limitation, there must be a considerably greater risk to the life of the pregnant mother than would be the case if the abortion did not take place. If there were some greater risk to the life of the mother, but not so much greater, the requirement for the preservation of the foetus in law would be higher than that for the preservation of the life of the pregnant woman.
      I do not believe that the House wanted to do that, but it reached that position because of the way matters turned out. The last minute, secondhand advice from the Attorney-General was directed not to that point but to a totally different one. Unfortunately, because of the closure, that point was not sufficiently forcefully made in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members.
      Mr. Shersby: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the difficulty occurs where the decision is marginal?
      Mr. Silkin: It is not even necessarily in a marginal case. It depends on the precise weight that the court would give to the word "substantially". It seems to me that, construing the two pieces of legislation together—the principal Act and the Bill, if it ever becomes law—the court would be bound to construe "substantially" as meaning a considerably greater risk. Anything between "greater risk" and "a considerably greater risk" would be something that the mother would have to bear. It would be unlawful for the doctor to carry out an abortion if that were so.
      In my view, it is not merely a marginal case. Even if it were purely marginal and there were a marginally greater risk to the life of the mother, I and the vast majority of people, including right hon. and hon. Members, would instinctively say that the life of the mother must come first and the preservation of the foetus must come second.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I agree with every word that my right hon. and learned Friend, says, but surely the
      1754
      situation is even worse. He is right to stress the extent to which the mother's life may be in danger by an increase in the risk that she has to bear, but the fact that she has to bear an increased risk means that there is a proportionately lower risk to the life of the foetus. In a situation where this is a balance between the two, the margin widens. There may be a substantial risk to the mother, which would not allow for an abortion of the foetus, even though the risk would otherwise have been inconsiderable to the foetus.
      Mr. Sakkin: That may well be right. I agree with my hon. Friend.
      The House has carried amendment No. 7. We can now do two things. First, we can mitigate the effect of something that I believe the House would not have done had it been fully conscious of what it was doing, any more than it would had it been conscious that it was creating the extraordinary situation of a double provision in the legislation. Secondly, I assume that the House would still be minded—as, indeed, would the proposer—if it were possible, even at this late stage, to accept a compromise to remove the possibility referred to again and again on the previous occasions of the subject coming up year after year, with fresh attempts to alter the existing law.
      Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a convincing case. Provided that he can, with the authority that he possesses as a previous Attorney-General, reassure the House that the amendment in no way detracts from the thrust against the statistical argument, I hope that the promoter of the Bill, in a spirit of compromise and to bring the matter to a conclusion, will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing that early view. I hope that the promoter will take full account of that expression of opinion.
      Turning directly to the point that my hon. Friend makes, as I said earlier, the vice that has been attributed to the present situation is the vice that doctors may make their minds up on a general statistical argument totally unrelated to the case physically in front of them. That is what worries certain hon. Members, including my hon. Friend and the promoter.

      1755
      It is to that, therefore, that I have directed the form of the amendment, which would make it quite clear that the phrase "substantially greater risk" would remain binding in law if the only consideration were statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally. If that were the only consideration in the mind of the doctor, he would have to be satisfied by the statistical argument—and it is difficult to see how he could be—that there would be substantially greater risk to the life of the mother.
      If there were some other factor that applied specifically to the physical characteristics of the mother, something that the doctor had found on examination over and above, or in lieu of, the statistical argument, something specific to the mother or the child—and we are dealing here also with the provision that applies to existing children——the word "substantially" would be excluded from consideration and it would be a pure balance of risk. Would the risk to the mother or the risk in the case of the child be greater—not substantially greater, but greater—if the abortion were not carried out than if it were carried out?
      I would never dare to suggest that the wording of the amendment is technically perfect. It can no doubt be improved, if necessary, in another place. But the idea behind the amendment and the intention of the wording that I have used is that which I have described. Given a physical or mental factor that affects the mother or the child specifically, "substantially" would be removed. Without such a factor, and with the general statistical argument affecting pregnancies alone, "substantially" would remain in. I would have thought that this would deal precisely with the difficulty that the promoter and my hon. Friend feel about the law as it stands. I would hope that it would also deal with the grave doubts that my hon. Friends and I, and those who oppose the Bill generally, have felt about the narrow victory that left "substantially" in.
      Mr. John Fraser: Is it not the case that the opinion would have to be formed in good faith and not merely capriciously?
      Mr. Silkin: Yes, of course. It runs through the whole of both the original Act and the amendments to it that any
      1756
      opinion must be formed in good faith. We are dealing with the situation in clause 1. Perhaps the same point will apply later in relation to the emergency situation. The doctors concerned have to form the opinion in good faith, first, that there is a factor other than
      "statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally"
      and, secondly, that the factor is one that creates greater danger to the life of the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated than if it is.
      Mr. W. Benyon: When I first read the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment it seemed to me that it completely negatived what was decided in the previous debate. This is a matter on which a number of hon. Members representing one side of the argument feel strongly. I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He must be more specific. What cases would fall within his amendment that do not fall within the amendment passed on 29 February? For instance, the handicapped child is dealt with. The social clause remains in the Bill. I understand that we are talking about a condition in the mother alone. What condition could exist that does not give rise to the substantially greater risk, in the terms of the amendment that was passed on 29 February, that would be covered by his amendment? I am still trying to sort that out in my mind.
      Mr. Silkin: It deals with the provision that was made. One of the difficulties is that one has to turn back to amendments already carried and incorporated into clause 1 and therefore carried back into section 1 of the Act. That section deals with all the matters that stood there originally, except those matters that the promoter of the Bill has taken out and put into a separate clause.
      10.15 am
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I should like to refer to a case, or series of cases, by no means uncommon, that would fit the category that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has mentioned. If a woman were suffering relatively high blood pressure, which is not uncommon in pregnancy, and it was necessary to carry out a termination at 16 weeks, I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that a doctor would be hard put to say categorically that the extent of the patient's

      1757
      high blood pressure was such as substantially to increase the risk. He could say that it would increase the risk. I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that it would take a bold doctor to add the word "substantially" in such cases. These cases are by no means uncommon.
      Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On matters of technical merit or knowledge, I bow to the greater knowledge and experience of my medical colleagues. I hope that this deals with the difficulty that the hon. Member for Buckingham raised originally in his point of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard what I said, understands that the intention was to deal with two real difficulties, one of substance and one technical. I understand fully that the amendment does not easily explain itself. It has to be explained, so that one understands what it is about. I fully understand that it could be thought to be simply going back on a decision that the House has already made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is not put forward with that intention.
      The amendment is put forward on what may be the last possible chance for the House to agree to a compromise that in my view would satisfy the majority on both sides of the argument and enable the Bill to proceed in what I agree would be a severely truncated form but a form that the promoter of the Bill expressed himself as willing to accept when we were dealing with the matter on the last occasion.
      Mr. Peter Archer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend address himself to one possible objection to this amendment which, I confess, has troubled me although I supported it? Those who have addressed their minds to the question of the statistical argument agree that it would be a misreading of the 1967 Act, and that if any doctor relies on that argument he has misconstrued the Act. What is my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to the suggestion that the wording of the amendment might entail giving statutory recognition to the possibility that, but for the amendment, a doctor might form his view without considering any factor other than the factor outside the statistical argument?
      Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Despite what I
      1758
      said earlier about the views of Attorneys-General and substitute Attorneys-General it is also of great value to have the views of former Solicitors-General. I gave close consideration to the point that he makes. I tried to allow for it in the amendment, although I have already accepted that I should be the last person to suggest that any amendment drafted by myself is necessarily technically perfect or necessarily anywhere near as good an amendment as the parliamentary draftsman, looking at it again, if necessary, could produce.
      The amendment contains the words
      "relies upon a factor other than or in addition to statistical probability".
      I have sought to recognise that it is proper to regard statistical probability as a factor, provided that if the doctor relies upon the wording of the rule without the word "substantially" he must consider a factor that goes beyond mere statistical pobability. Medical hon. Members may wish to comment on that. It is unrealistic to expect that a doctor would exclude from his mind real evidence relating to statistical possibilities. The danger arises when a doctor fastens on that and that alone. By the use of the words
      "other than or in addition to".
      I hope that I have dealt with the difficulty raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I hope that the promoters will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. I move the amendment in the spirit of correcting what is clearly wrong, technically. I seek to further a compromise that is in the general interests of the House and is wanted by the House and the country. The country does not want this subject to be considered again and again, year after year. It does not want the subject to take up the time of the House for day after day, to the exclusion of other more important business.
      Mr. Ennals: I do not wish to make a long intervention. As one of the sponsors of the amendment, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) for the way in which he moved the amendment. I hope that his arguments will convince the promoters of the Bill that they should support the amendment.

      1759
      I have made many interventions during the passage of the Bill because I believe that it is in the interests of the House and the country for a decision to be taken. I say that partly because of my personal interests, and partly because of the responsibilities that I had as Secretary of State in the previous Government. A decision should be taken because I believe that the House would be held in disrepute if we were not able, after so many months of debate, to reach a conclusion. I believe that a decision should be taken because the House would be held in further disrepute if the issue were raised again next year or the year after.
      I wish that the Bill had never been presented. I believe that we should be satisfied with the 1967 Act and the way in which it is operated. However, the will of the House is expressed clearly. It wishes to make one change—from a 28-week limit to a 24-week limit. Having expressed that view the House should be able to take a decision without the problems and complications that would exist if the "substantially" amendment, having been defeated last time, were not accepted today.
      The argument deeply involves the medical profession. Even more, it affects mothers. People say, not "Please do not change the Bill", but "Please let us know clearly what the law says". It is important to pass a Bill today. The attitude of many hon. Members, including myself, will be much affected if the amendment is carried. If it is carried, we shall have a Bill of which the House will have reason to be proud and which will not do any damage.
      I do not claim to have medical knowledge. I have never performed an operation and, thank heaven, I shall never have to do so. However, I know the anxiety of the medical profession about the problems that it will experience when having to make swift decisions. A doctor cannot consult his lawyers before taking a quick decision. I am convinced that unless the amendment is carried doctors will be excessively cautious. Once a doctor decides that he dare not, because of the law, do what he believes in his clinical judgment should be done, women will suffer. Hundreds of women could die as a result of a doctor not doing his medical duty because of his fear of what
      1760
      the word "substantially" means. The BMA has made its views clear. I hope that the amendment will be carried.
      If the amendment is not carried, many women will still have abortions, but they will not be legal. Once again we are attempting to ensure not only that doctors are able to make clinical judgments, as they should, but that we do not push women into the black market and illegal activities.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall be brief. I support the amendment. It is important that the House should do its utmost to ensure that the legislation makes sense. The reality is that often we are not very good at making sense, hence the importance of the other place as a revising Chamber. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that I suspect that the other place is this morning the most popular institution in the land, I do not believe that it is right and proper that this House should pass the buck continually and leave it to the other place to make sense of the nonsenses that we produce in this House.
      I believe that the first purpose of the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) is of considerable importance. However, it is the second purpose of the amendment that demonstrates the considerable service that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done to the House. I shall not attempt to go over his arguments, but the effect of the word "substantially", which was left in as a result of our decision on the last occasion on which we debated the Bill, is that there is continuing opposition to the measure.
      As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the vast majority of people would like to see the Bill enacted on the basis of lowering the upper limit for abortion to 24 weeks and leaving it at that. On the other hand, those of us who have had doubts about the Bill from the beginning must accept that the supporters of the Bill wish to go further.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be providing the House with a reasonable second attempt to find a compromise between those who support and those who oppose provisions in the Bill

      1761
      other than the 24-weeks issue. It must be accepted that were it not for the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health in respect of the word "substantially" in all likelihood the House would have come to a different conclusion.
      I think that on that occasion the advice that my hon. Friend gave may have been perfectly reasonable and sensible from the legal point of view, but perhaps it was not very wise from the political point of view, having regard to the wider implications of the passage of the Bill.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the hon. Member accept that that would not have been very wise from a medical point of view either? It would appear that if the original wording is carried the decision to carry out a termination will be not a medical decision but a legal one. The doctor would have to obtain a legal opinion at the beginning.
      Does the hon. Member accept that the doctor could find himself in an invidious position? He would have to obtain legal advice, because it is possible that he would face litigation if he did not perform the abortion. If he did not perform the abortion—or recommend it—there could be litigation against him if the mother were in some danger, which he was unable to prove beforehand. In other words, he would have to obtain qualified legal advice on whether to perform the abortion. He would be told by the lawyer which was the lesser of the legal risks, not the lesser of the medical risks.
      Mr. Morrison: I entirely accept what the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) says. I was trying to describe what I understood had happened the last time that we debated this issue.
      As a result of the House not agreeing to the amendment that has been referred to, those who oppose the Bill remain extremely unhappy. It is helpful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed a further compromise which for me, as an opponent of the Bill—except for the question of the 24 weeks —makes the measure acceptable, subject to the acceptance of the other amendments relating to the dropping of later clauses. I hope therefore, that the supporters of the Bill will be prepared to
      1762
      accept the amendment.
      It is a matter for regret that the Attorney-General is not here today. It is difficult for the layman to understand the legal language of any Attorney-General when he is advising the House, but it is better to have the advice of the Attorney-General than not to have it. Having said that, I must go on to say that we have had the benefit of the advice of a former Attorney-General and that that was of considerable importance. I support the amendment and hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. W. Benyon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall consider that request when I have heard something in reply, even if it is only a few words.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) suggested that the advice of the Minister on the last occasion when he intervened to say why the Government would not oppose the word "substantially" was legally correct. That may or may not be true but the Minister did not give any reason for that advice. He pointed out that the Attorney-General had not explained the significance of the word "substantially". Some of the Bill's opponents felt strongly that the advice given to the House on that occasion was legally incorrect.
      I cannot pretend that this amendment corrects the wrong done by leaving the word "substantially" in the Bill. This is simply an ameliorative provision that does not correct the wrong done by leaving in "substantially". I signed the amendment in that spirit, but I cannot pretend that if it were passed that would mean that all my doubts and reservations about the Bill would be removed. That would not be the case, and I wish to explain why.
      The reason why I supported the 1967 Act was that it struck a proper balance between the interests of the mother and the other children of the family and the interests of the foetus. I thought that the preservation of a proper balance was morally correct. I do not see that it is right to destroy the life of the foetus at

      1763
      the will of the mother. Equally, I do not see that it is right to put at risk the health of the mother and the other children without serious consideration being given to their interests.
      It seems to me that a proper balance is one of probabilities between those interests. We left that balance in the 1967 Act. When we included the word "substantially" in the Bill we moved sharply towards the interests of the foetus and against the interests of the mother and the other children being considered. That is why I do not feel that I can allow the Bill to go through without expressing the strongest opposition to it.
      In this clause it seems to me that we are trying to go back a little way only. It is ludicrous to assert, as some hon. Members have, that because doctors are saying that the pattern of pregnancies in the past has shown that there is a 51–49 chance that the presence of a particular rubella will lead to deformity in the child or that a blockage of the passage may cause the death of the mother, it is necessary for us to include the word "substantially". I do not believe that that is how doctors work. To meet that fear, the amendment seeks to provide that even though that was the pattern of past events, the presence of a rubella or a blockage in the passage would provide a supervening factor.
      It would not be enough in such a case for the prosecution in an action against a consultant to call a doctor to give evidence to the effect that on past records the foetus or the mother were all right in 51 per cent of the cases, or even in 60 per cent. of the cases. The consultant who was on trial would be able to say that the clinical indications were that the life of the mother was in danger or that there was a risk to the health of the unborn child.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: In any case, the statistics would not apply in the way that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the sponsors of the Bill would make them apply. The statistics would not generalise. They would have to apply under a whole series of conditions in respect of each mother—how many children she had had, any physical or mental conditions from which she might be suffering, and so on. There would be a balancing of the dangers of these conditions one
      1764
      against the other. In other words, every time a doctor made his decision he would do so not on the basis of general statistics, but on the basis of the mother whom he was attending.
      Mr. Lyon: I think that that is right. I have already explained that I believe that allowing "substantially" to remain in the Bill has probably done irremedial damage. I am sure that when doctors make their decision they do so on the basis of the facts of the individual patient. I am sure that they do not consider the statistical balance, as some hon. Members fear. The mere fact that one propagandist for abortion has said that he does consider the statistical balance does not mean that that is what doctors generally do.
      Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fallacy of that approach is analogous to arguing that most people die in bed, and that therefore is it safer to climb Mount Everest than to go to bed?
      Mr. Lyon: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I also agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), that if a consultant carried out an abortion on the basis of a statistical balance he would be legally in the wrong and could be prosecuted. The mere fact that there have been very few prosecutions since 1967 does not mean that that approach is not wrong. Some doctors have asserted that the right of the mother to claim an abortion is pre-eminent, but that does not mean that that is the law. Any medical practitioner who conducted an abortion on that basis would be in breach of the 1967 Act and would therefore be guilty of an offence under the 1861 Act. The mere fact that people make these assertions does not mean that they are in accordance with the law. We ought to consider what the law was and what it will be if we pass the Bill in this form.
      I therefore come back to the argument for the amendment. It would get rid of any suggestion that mere statistical balance is the only factor that is required. It would not get away from the argument that the judgment exercised by consultants involves a statistical balance. The last time that we discussed the Bill on Report the Minister argued that leaving

      1765
      in "substantially" would mean abandoning the statistical balance argument completely. That is nonsense. There must be some judgment of the risk to the life or health of the mother or the children of the family, and that involves, to some extent, such a balance.
      No doctor of integrity will carry out an abortion if the risk to the life of the mother is 1 per cent., because that would be a minimal risk. That balance will be present in the doctor's mind when he forms his judgment. The statistical balance is therefore present.
      10.45 am
      Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend has already put his finger on the point of contention between us. He believes that a risk of 1:99 is not substantial. I would consider that risk to be very great from the mother's point of view.
      Mr. Lyon: I do not know how my hon. Friend can suggest that a risk of 1:99 is substantial. There must be a serious risk before the abortion can go ahead, and that must involve some statistical balance. The point is that, if the word "substantially" is included, the seriousness of the risk goes up proportionately. Everyone is agreed about that. There is no point in putting the word in unless it means something, and the courts would say that it meant something and that Parliament had put it in for that reason.
      I should like the Attorney-General to come to the House and deny that there is a statistical balance. It would be flying in the face of English law to say that, and I do not believe that he has said it. I think that the Minister came to the House the last time the Bill was on Report with a view to securing a little compromise and giving the sponsors something more than the 24 weeks' provision. He believes that if the Bill becomes law with the word "substantially" retained, it would not do much harm, but he fails to recognise that it will do a considerable amount of harm because it will put more women's lives at risk. I do not believe that it is morally right that, to satisfy the body of opinion that is sponsoring the Bill, more women's lives ought to be put at risk.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo: Of course that is a great risk and a terribly serious one. However, there
      1766
      is a second risk which, though less serious, is still significant. It is the risk to the careers of many doctors.
      Mr. Lyon: I was going to end on that. All the arguments that I and my right hon. and learned Friend have put presuppose that we are standing in a criminal court, that we are arguing before a jury. We are presupposing that men of integrity who carried out their duty as they saw it under the Hippocratic oath have been brought into a criminal court to defend their integrity. We are saying that when they are in that position they may or may not have such-and-such a defence. However, it seems to be insufferable that they should be put in that position. It is absurd for us to adopt that approach on the basis that we are trying to protect ourselves against a doctor who likes to appear on television and talk about the statistical balance. We should not prejudice the future reputation and integrity of doctors in that way.
      Of course that is not what the sponsor of the Bill intends. He does not intend that more doctors should end up in court; he intends that there should be fewer abortions. However, doctors will be frightened of the possibility of ending up in court, so they will sheer off from giving abortions. That is intolerably immoral. If, on the impartial and unbiased assessment of a woman's condition, a doctor thinks that it is right for her to have an abortion under the 1967 Act, he should not be frightened off because he thinks that he might find himself in court. That is an intolerable situation, and I am surprised that there should be a body of moral opinion in favour of it. I do think that the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas calls for that interpretation of the moral code.
      I do not like the Bill, and even if the amendment is passed I shall not like it, but at least the amendment will make it a bit better than it is at present.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: I shall comment on the amendment very briefly. I remind the House that one of the reasons why we are so often attacked by people outside is that we produce legislation that is virtual gobbledegook to the man in the street. This House, after clear and lengthy debates, decided that the word "substantially" should be left in the Bill. That

      1767
      was not a position arrived at purely to please the body of opinion that has sponsored the Bill. It was the decision of the House itself, which voted for the inclusion of the word.
      I believe that the House voted in that way because at the time of the passage of the 1967 Act it was made clear to us that we should not have abortion on demand or request if the Bill were passed. In fact, that was the only reason why that Bill reached the statute book.
      Mr. Ennals rose—
      Mrs. Knight: No, I am sorry, I have no intention of giving way. May I point out that on this subject, more than on any other, it is important that Parliament should make its will absolutely clear.
      Mr. John Morris rose—
      Mrs. Knight: No I shall not give way.
      Mr. Morris rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Lady is not giving way. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) must resume his seat.
      Mrs. Knight: On this subject, above all others, it is important that Parliament should make its will clear to the doctors who will have to implement the Bill.
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Mrs. Knight: No, I will not give way, and I wish to make it amply clear that I shall not give way to anyone in the course of my speech. I intended to be brief, and I shall be.
      The word "substantially" was included in the Bill after a great deal of debate and after weighing up all the questions involved. Those who accuse the Solicitor-General of not giving his advice to the House should realise that he did give it at great length in Committee. They have only to read Hansard for our Committee proceedings on 4 December last.
      Subsection (1)(b) says:
      "(b) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of serious injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, substantially greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.".
      1768
      If someone reading the Bill then moves on to another part of it and finds that in certain circumstances doctors can make a decision as if the word "substantially" had been omitted earlier, that is pure gobbledegook gone mad. There is no doubt that the House was quite clear about the inclusion of the word "substantially" in subsection (1)(b).
      Mr. W. Benyon rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House proceeded to a division—
      Mr. John Morris(seated and covered): On a point of order Mr. Speaker. On the last occasion on which the issue of the word "substantial" arose, the Attorney-General was in his place when the motion for the closure was put. The closure has been moved again by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and there has been no opportunity for the Attorney-General to give advice to the House. On this occasion no Law Officer has been present. Is not this a disgrace to the traditions of the House? Should not we be allowed to have legal advice on this question?
      Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Attorney-General, not for me.
      Dr. M. S. Miller(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You indicated 20 minutes ago that you would not accept a closure until you heard a reply to the debate from the other side. Do I take it that the reply from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is regarded by you as being a true reflection of a reply to the debate itself? It certainly does not satisfy us. We do not feel that there has been an adequate reply. Is it your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a speech such as that, lasting only two or three minutes from an hon. Member who did not permit any relevant intervention, was enough to satisfy us? I know that the hon. Lady is not necessarily obliged to give way, but surely during a reply to a serious debate we were entitled to put searching questions so that the hon. Lady could elaborate the points that she was making.
      In addition, are we now departing from the tradition of allowing a debate of this

      1769
      importance to last for about two hours? This debate has lasted only one hour and five minutes.
      Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the last point first. There is no special time allotted to each different amendment. We have been discussing this amendment for

      Division No. 222]

      AYES

      [10.55 am

      Abse, Leo

      Fell, Anthony

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Alexander, Richard

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Alton, David

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Murphy, Christopher

      Ancram, Michael

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Neubert, Michael

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Newton, Tony

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Normanton, Tom

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Parry, Robert

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Pawsey, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodhart, Philip

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Pollock, Alexander

      Blackburn, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Brlnton, Tim

      Henderson, Barry

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Normar,

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Shersby, Michael

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Silvester, Fred

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Speed, Keith

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lambie, David

      Stainton, Keith

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lang, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Loveridge, John

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire;

      Cohen, Stanley

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Tebbit, Norman

      Cope, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Cormack, Patrick

      McCrindle, Robert

      Thorne, Neil (llford South)

      Corrie, John

      McCusker, H.

      Tinn, James

      Costain, A. P.

      McElhone, Frank

      Trippler, David

      Cralgen. J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      McKelvey. William

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dempsey, James

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Wakeham, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Waller, Gary

      Dixon, Donald

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

      Douglas, Dick

      Marlow, Tony

      Whitney, Raymond

      Dover, Denshore

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

      Wickenden, Keith

      Eadie, Alex

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Eggar, Timothy

      Marten, Neil (Banbury)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Elliott, Sir William

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      English, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Ewing, Harry

      Mellor, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Eyre, Reginald

      Moate, Roger

      Mr. Vivian Bendall and Mr. Ian Campbell.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Montgomery, Fergus

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank

      Conlan, Bernard

      Field, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cook, Robin F.

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Cowans, Harry

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Crowther. J. S.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cryer, Bob

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Forman, Nlgei

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Forrester, John

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Deakins, Eric

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Freud, Clement

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Dobson, Frank

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dormand, Jack

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Dubs, Alfred

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Buchan, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Graham, Ted

      Budgen, Nick

      Eastham, Ken

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & F)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

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

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Hardy, Peter

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Cartwright, John

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Farr, John

      Holland, Stuart (L'bath, Vauxhall)

      one and a quarter hours. The hon. Lady took six minutes to reply, and her reply was given on behalf of the sponsor of the Bill. I then accepted the closure.
      The House having divided:Ayes140,Noes 147.

      Homewood, William

      Morton, George

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hooley, Frank

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Huckfield, Les

      Needham, Richard

      Squire, Robin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Newens, Stanley

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoddart, David

      John, Brynmor

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Strang, Gavin

      Kerr, Russell

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Straw, Jack

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Knox, David

      Park, George

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Parker, John

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Tilley, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Race, Reg

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Radice, Giles

      Viggers, Peter

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Ward, John

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Richardson, Jo

      Weetch, Ken

      McWilliam, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

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

      Magee, Bryan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Welsh, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Wheeler, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

      Ryman, John

      Whitlock, William

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Sever, John

      Winnick, David

      Maxton, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wright, Sheila

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

      Silverman, Julius

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Morris: By that last vote the House has demonstrated that it will not put up with the intolerant attitude of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who gave what purported to be a reply to that debate. As a result of the attitude exemplified in her speech and her refusal to give way to hon. Members who wished to intervene, she has jeopardised the whole Bill.
      I make that clear because so far I have voted in favour of every closure motion with the exception of the one moved on the last occasion that we discussed the Bill, relating to the amendment to delete the word "substantially". I voted against that closure, as I did against this most recent one, because the Attorney-General was present on that occasion and failed to respond to the wishes expressed to him by hon. Members on both sides that he should give the House the benefit of his advice.
      On this occasion there has been no Law Officer here and we have not had the advice to which the House is entitled on such an important matter. The hon. Member for Edgbaston said that Parliament would not wish to foist on the country legislation that amounted to gobbledegook, but that is precisely what we are doing, and that is why we are entitled to have the advice of a Law Officer on the Floor of the House for those of us who have not been taking part in the debate or have not been
      1772
      following the matter as closely as we should. We are entitled to that advice in order to ensure that legislation does not become gobbledegook.
      On the last occasion that we discussed the words "serious" and "substantially", the Minister for Health told us—the hon. Member for Edgbaston is wise to leave the Chamber at this point, because her whole attitude has jeopardised the Bill—that:
      "If the House feels that there should be some change to make this clear, my advice is that that would be best achieved by the addition of the word 'substantially' alone."
      That does not go far in advising the House whether the word should be included. The hon. Gentleman continued:
      "It is not neccssary to include both the word serious' and the word 'substantially'. I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and this is also his view. Therefore if hon. Members feel that some change should be made they should support amendment No. 4 and oppose amendment No. 6."—[Official Report, 29 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1726.]
      At that juncture the Attorney-General should have been here. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said:
      "As I understand it, I was being asked 'If a doctor answered the question honestly, could he be sure that he would not find that he had committed a criminal offence?' I do not believe that there is a lawyer in the House who would confidently advise the doctor that the answer to that question was in the affirmative." —[Official Report, 29 February 1980; Vol. 979. c. 1732.]

      1773
      That is the difficulty and the danger of allowing through legislation that will become gobbledegook.
      The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) made precisely that point on a point of order during a Division. He said:
      "Is it in order for the amendments to go through without the Attorney-General having given us on the Floor of the House, a definition of the word 'substantially' so that we could consider the effects that it would have on the Bill if we voted for them? "—[Official Report, 29 February 1980; Vol. 979. c. 1735.]
      In those circumstances it is contrary to the traditions of the House that we have not been given advice on how the Bill stands and what would be the effect of the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
      We are not having an academic discussion in the House or on television; we are concerned with the situation that judges will face in giving their view to a jury on the state of the law. I find it difficult to understand how judges could clarify the situation and make it abundantly clear to a jury, either with or without the amendment—though perhaps the situation would be eased a little if the amendment were passed. The doctor would be facing not a television trial but a real trial, and his professional future would be in jeopardy. The Bill amounts to nothing less than gobbledegook.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I am ad idem with my right hon. and learned Friend on the points that he is making, but is he aware that on other major Bills going through Committees the Law Officers have declined, when requested, to give legal advice on matters of great importance? It is not uncharacteristic of them to refuse to do so in this instance. Does it perhaps reflect on their competence or their confidence in their ability to advise?
      Mr. Morris: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall not seek to comment on confidence or competence, but I have noticed the tendency of the Law Officers to refuse to explain to the House the effect of legislation. The House is entitled to the views of the Law Officers so that we do not send legislation from the House that is not comprehensible or fair and that puts the medical profession
      1774
      in grave difficulty. I fully support the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West that it will be difficult to give advice in present circumstances.
      A doctor will have to take a professional view, knowing that if he errs, when the law is uncertain, he may face a criminal trial. In those circumstances the House is entitled to have the advice of the Law Officers before it proceeds further.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt this important debate, but we have passed 11 o'clock—the hour that the House has appointed for ministerial statements to be made on Fridays. Have you received any intimation from the Government or the Department of Education and Science that a Minister intends to make a statement today on the conseqences of the spectacular defeat that the Government suffered on an important clause of the Education (No. 2) Bill in another place last night?
      Mr. Speaker: I have received no request, otherwise at this stage I would have called a Minister to make a statement.
      Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am not seeking to press you, because I know that you have no responsibilities, direct or indirect, in this matter. However, the matter is of immense importance to local education authorities, to parents who may be faced with charges and, obviously, to children trying to get to school.
      We are near the end of the financial year and therefore it is a matter of considerable urgency. The proceedings of the House on a Friday deny us the opportunity, for reasons of which we are all aware, to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9, and therefore I hope that a statement will be forthcoming; otherwise we shall have no alternative but to seek to raise the matter, even after the passage of three days, under Standing Order No. 9 on Monday.
      Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, which was at least an interlude in the rest of the business.
      Dr. Glyn: I shall be brief. I raised the whole question of the word "substantially" on the last occasion that we debated the Bill and I shall base my remarks on that point.
      I supported the Second Reading, and it was the will of the House that we should have a compromise at 24 weeks. The House has been brought into disrepute by continual long debates and I should like to see a compromise on 24 weeks, and machinery to put on the statute book the clear will of the House.
      I regret that the Law Officers have not come to the House to explain the implications of the amendment moved by the right hon and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), who is a former Law Officer.
      I make no apology for having resisted the closure. I considered that the amendment was so fundamental to the Bill that we needed at least a Minister to explain to us the consequences of the amendment. That is not an unreasonable request.
      Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman and I have taken similar points of view in several respects. Does he agree that in the absence of a Law Officer—and since the statement of the Minister of Health in the last debate was very brief and did not explain the matter fully—it would be helpful if perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security were to give a more detailed explanation?
      Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The closure was moved without the House having had the benefit of an explanation, either from the Government or from the Law Officers, of the effect of the amendment. I listened to the debate with considerable interest. The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich was very generous in giving way, but I was still not entirely convinced that his amendment would have the effect of removing the word "substantially".
      The arguments on this matter are fundamental to the whole Bill. I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered by opponents of the Bill, or to mention the difficulties in which a doctor could be placed, but it was because of
      1776
      those difficulties that I voted against the inclusion of the word "substantially". The question is of great importance to the medical profession, to patients, and to the public. I therefore took the view that it would be better to truncate the Bill in order to allow it to proceed, with the change to a period of 24 weeks, accepting that parliamentary time is limited and that we cannot go on discussing the Bill week after week.
      If the Bill does not get through we shall be faced with yet another abortion Bill. That is bound to happen. Since it is quite clear that the House is prepared to compromise, I should have thought that the right thing to do was to accept the Bill in a truncated form. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), if I may say so with great respect, moved the closure a little too early—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The right thing to do is to address remarks to the amendment that is now under discussion.
      Dr. Glyn: I am trying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that I should like to hear the views of one of the Law Officers of the Crown on the amendment, before voting on it. If we pass the amendment and the Bill later becomes nonsense, we shall look rather foolish. That is why I want to hear the views of a Law Officer. We must have a proper opinion on it. If we were to be given information that was sufficient to allay the fears that many hon. Members have about the word "substantially" I should be perfectly happy to let the amendment go through and to proceed as rapidly as possible with the passage of the Bill, but until we have had that advice we cannot possibly come to a proper decision.
      I raised the matter, on a point of order, early in the previous debate, because I realised that this would be the main stumbling block in the whole Bill. I believe that most of us, whatever our views, would prefer to see the Bill passed in a truncated form. There is a consensus that the period of 24 weeks is right; indeed, we compromised on that issue. Some hon. Members preferred a period of 20 weeks and others 28 weeks, but in the end we came to a sensible conclusion. I cannot understand why we cannot also come to a sensible conclusion on the

      1777
      word "substantially". Possibly the word could be removed in another place.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment is complicated. I am not a practising barrister and it is difficult for me to understand the effect of it. I hope, therefore, that before we vote on it we shall have the advice of the Law Officers.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have the advice of the Law Officers. I suggest that we want advice not merely on the point that he has raised but on the state of the Bill, in relation to the point that I raised earlier about the law covering the same subject twice in two different places.
      Dr. Glyn: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. He has reinforced the point that I wanted to make. I want to know what would be the courts' interpretation of the word "substantially". I also want to know how the Bill would be affected if the amendment were passed. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman was gracious enough to spend a considerable amount of time in explaining the consequences of it, I am still not satisfied, without an assurance from the Government and from the Law Officers, as to the exact effect it would have. That is why I repeat that the House is entitled to know what the effect would be before being asked to vote on the amendment.
      For those reasons, I hope that the House will be sensible and try to bring the matter to a conclusion today, so that we may have the Bill on the statute book in a truncated form, in the way that I have already explained. I believe that that would be to the satisfaction of the House and of the country, and would avoid bringing the House into disrepute. We cannot go on arguing about a matter that is of fundamental importance. Whatever our personal views may be, we have shown that we are prepared to compromise. We should abide by the will of the majority of the House on this matter.
      Mr. Archer: I confess that I am deeply disappointed by the reaction of the sponsors of the Bill to the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin). In the
      1778
      course of our debate, the opinions of hon. Members have differed very substantially, but they have listened to the various arguments and shown the tolerance that is customary in this House. I felt, therefore, that the Bill might have reached the stage at which there almost began to be a meeting of minds.
      My right hon. and learned Friend put forward his arguments for the amendment with great clarity. I do not think that anyone who heard him would suggest that he did not make a clear and convincing case. He may not have said all that there is to be said on the subject, and there may be arguments in the other direction, but surely the House was entitled to hear those arguments. Out of courtesy not only to my right hon. and learned Friend but to the House, one would expect those arguments to be presented, but the only hon. Member who rose to argue against the amendment was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).
      If I may say so without offence, she never for a moment directed her mind to the arguments that had been advanced. It was a profound disappointment to some of us. We had hoped, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, that we could have had the benefit of the advice of a Law Officer. At the very least, as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) suggested, we might have had the intervention of a Minister to give us some advice. But all that happened was that those sponsoring the Bill attempted to steamroller it through the House, irrespective of the arguments in favour of the amendment.
      11.30 am
      Mr. Abse: I am a sponsor of the Bill and I have given a clear indication, so my right hon. and learned Friend is being extravagant in suggesting that there are not responses to the amendment likely to come and still able to come.
      Mr. Archer: I was about to exempt my hon. Friend from those censures, but if he says that responses may still come I can only say that the ground has not been well prepared by the reactions of the sponsors up to this point.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend

      1779
      aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) voted for the closure without attempting to take part in the debate?
      Mr. Archer: I think that is right, but at least my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) suggested that there was a possibility of a compromise. If he had backed that statement with his vote, we might have been even more impressed, but I exempt him from what I said in general—that he had not directed his mind to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: If my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker and puts into words the thoughts that he uttered during my remarks, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that nothing would please the House more.
      Mr. Archer: Indeed, if between us we could coax our hon. Friend to his feet later, we should be delighted. For that reason, I would not want to say anything now that might exacerbate the element of bitterness that has arisen because of the reaction of the sponsors of the Bill.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I approach the matter in exactly the same spirit as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—that we would need to hear the views, which we have not heard up to now, of those who have opposed the Bill from the word go. Their reaction to the amendment is vital.
      Mr. Archer: I should have thought that the hon. Member would be the last to make such an intervention.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fair man, and I was astonished to hear him say that the sponsors of the Bill are seeking to steamroller it through the House. He and the House know that the truth is that we have been prepared to sacrifice a substantial part of the Bill in order to protect the gains that we have already made in respect of the upper limit and strengthening the criteria —the two principles that have already been decided. The sponsors of the Bill
      1780
      were anxious—in the interests of reaching a satisfactory solution for all concerned—to proceed to a conclusion. It is the extremist opponents of the Bill who are not satisfied with that. Therefore, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please allow that the sponsors have been ready for some time to accept a compromise in the spirit in which he himself is trying to address the House?
      Mr. Archer: There are two comments —I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for making them—to which his intervention is open. First, an attempt at compromise by the sponsors would have been more convincing had it happened earlier, when it did not seem unlikely that the Bill would reach the statute book. Secondly, it would have been more convincing had the sponsors addressed their minds to the genuine problem that the amendment seeks to meet. It does not appear convincing when their reaction to that problem is simply to move the closure and seek to steamroller the Bill through, irrespective of the argument. I shall not labour the point, but if ever sponsors deserved to lose their Bill it is the sponsors of this Bill, after the way in which they have behaved this morning.
      I shall not seek to repeat at length the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich—he made them perfectly clear—but I wonder whether the hon. Member for Edgbaston was listening to him. She said that she was anxious that the House should not seek to put gobbledegook on the statute book. My right hon. and learned Friend explained that that is precisely what would happen if the Bill went forward in its present form. If that happens, the same problem will be dealt with on the statute book in two different places, with provisions that may be held to be inconsistent.
      I was one of those who, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich, had responsibility for five years for the condition of the statute book. We know that for one reason or another—because there was a late amendment, because there was not sufficient time, because someone perhaps wanted to use the statute book for cosmetic purposes—from time to time something reaches the statute book which later causes litigants

      1781
      a great deal of trouble. I must not complain—the legal profession does very well out of it—but it presents the courts with a real problem of construction.
      The House is normally responsible enough, wherever possible, to try to ensure that that does not happen, but if the Bill proceeds unamended that is precisely what will happen. If the hon. Member for Edgbaston is anxious for us not to put gobbledegook on the statute book I hope that she will vote for the amendment, because that is the first thing that it seeks to achieve.
      The second and quite independent reason for the amendment is to try to remedy the problem that I thought most hon. Members recognised when we debated the matter a fortnight ago. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon, I am still puzzled by the reasoning behind the insertion of the word "substantially". I am puzzled, first, because I do not think that there is a problem that it is designed to meet. Virtually every lawyer in the House who has spoken on this subject has agreed that if it is designed to meet what is called the statistical argument applied by a doctor, that argument in any event rests upon a misconstruction of the 1967 Act.
      It represents in the first place a sheer error of logic, I should have thought, on any showing, because to apply statistics relating to a substantial undifferentiated group of things or people to a particular individual situation that we know is distinguished by certain factors is simply a fallacious approach. As I suggested earlier, it would be like arguing that since most people die in bed it is safer to climb Mount Everest than to go to bed. It would therefore be a logical fallacy. But we also know that it would be a misconstruction of the Act. If there were ever any doubt of that, we may be encouraged by the fact that the Lane committee came down clearly in favour of that construction.
      It was therefore difficult to know to what it was that the insertion of the word was directed. For that reason, some of us would have welcomed the views of the Attorney-General, so that we could have known whether he thought that there was genuinely a problem.
      Some hon. Members have done less than justice to what the Minister for
      1782
      Health said in the last debate. I have looked particularly carefully at his advice. He said:
      "some hon. Members are anxious that the wording of the criteria should not be capable of a purely statistical interpretation".
      He did not say that in his view they were capable of that interpretation, still less that that was the correct interpretation. He went on:
      "If the House feels that there should be some change to make this clear…it would be best achieved…"—[Official Report, 29 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1726.]
      So, in fairness, the Minister was not purporting to advise the House that that was the correct interpretation, or that there was a genuine problem.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Minister for Health gave direct advice that that problem could be overcome by leaving "substantially" in the Bill. Surely that advice was legally incorrect.
      Mr. Archer: I agree with my hon. Friend. He put the proposition conditionally, but in a form that persuaded some hon. Members to vote in a different way.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is it not true that the unfortunate result of that advice is that he failed to draw to our attention the graver danger created by inserting that word?
      Mr. Archer: I am sure that my right hon and learned Friend is right. His advice was not balanced advice. Even if one assumes that the statistical construction is possible and that it is adopted by a substantial number of doctors, I do not see how that deals with the problem. If it were to transpire, statistically that a substantially greater number of women incurred injury by continuing the pregnancy the word "substantially" would still not meet the problem. If there were a genuine problem—I do not believe that there is—that would not solve it.
      But the matter was debated and the House decided that the word "substantially" should remain in the Bill. However, I am sure that those hon. Members who listened to that debate feel that a problem remains. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon referred to the risk involved. A doctor may arrive at a bona fide conclusion, but he runs the risk that it will be reconsidered by a jury. If that jury arrives

      1783
      at a different conclusion in good faith, he may find that he has committed a criminal offence. Doctors will therefore be reluctant to carry out abortions.
      My right hon. and learned Friend has corrected the gobbledegook in the Bill. In addition, he has found a method of alleviating that problem. He has said that if the justification for keeping "substantially" in the Bill is to deal with the statistical approach it follows that if a doctor does not use that approach the word "substantially" is not needed. In those circumstances the word "substantially" should be taken out.
      The hon. Member for Edgbaston seems to find this subject funny. Every hon. Member is entitled to his or her brand of humour, some of us believe that a problem exists. That problem could spell out tragedy for many people. We have not heard why my right hon. and learned Friend's solution to that difficulty is not viable. My hon. Friend the member for Pontypool said that this might form the basis of a compromise.
      I was a little troubled about the drafting of the amendment. As I said earlier, it might give statutory recognition to the suggestion that the statistical approach was a proper construction of the 1967 Act, but having listened to my right hon. and learned Friend's explanation, I conclude that that is not a serious risk. Any court would understand that that is not what the House is saying. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill proceeds in a manner that is technically correct. There should be no obvious technical defects, and we have tried hard to meet the genuine problems that have arisen as a result of the last debate.
      At the beginning of the debate I thought that in a spirit of tolerance we might have had a meeting of minds. However, I no longer believe that that is likely. The sponsors have made no move towards such a compromise. The House can only try to improve the Bill.
      Mr. John Corrie rose—
      Mrs. Renée Short: Fancy that.
      Hon. Members: Speech.
      Mr. Corrie: Opposition Members continually say that if we compromise we might get the Bill through. However, judging from the previous debate on this subject I am sure that if the word "substantially" remains in the Bill, there can be no compromise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we compromise and accept this amendment we shall reach an agreement. Perhaps that is so. However, the word "substantially" will still be left in the Bill and certain hon. Members are determined not to allow the rest of the Bill to be enacted. If I had an indication that there was some agreement between us, a compromise might be reached. However, it is obvious that certain Opposition Members do not wish to compromise on the rest of the Bill. There is therefore no point in compromising about this amendment. That is sad.
      11.45 am
      Mr. Archer: The amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time. If the hon. Gentleman felt that there was room for compromise he should have said so earlier. We should ensure that if the Bill reaches the statute book it will include this amendment. In that way, some of the danger might be mitigated. But it would be better to ensure that it does not reach the statute book.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I was puzzled by the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about the statistical argument. I listened to his remarks, just as I listened to those of the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and lerned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin). His argument was well reasoned. The fact is, however, that it was not intended that the 1967 Act should provide abortion on demand. The principal author of that Act has said that on more than one occasion.
      Mrs. Short: We do not have abortion on demand.
      Sir B. Braine: I hope that the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of listening to my argument. I have listened to every word that has been uttered. I wish to address my remarks to the former Solicitor-General.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Snob.
      Sir B. Braine: I repeat, it was never intended that there should be abortion on demand. The Lane committee examined the workings of the Act. It concluded that the Act was generally working satisfactorily, but it pointed out a number of serious abuses. Some doctors used the statistical argument in order to allow abortion on demand. Briefly the statistical argument is that it is marginally more dangerous for a woman to give birth than to have an abortion. However, one is not comparing like with like.
      Mr. Archer rose—
      Sir B. Braine: During the debate it has not yet been pointed out that the statistical argument is phoney. It compares relatively healthy women who have abortions in the first trimester with those who are ill at the time of birth. Serious ill-effect from giving birth triggers off an existing maternal disease. The statistical argument compares them with others who die in childbirth or who suffer a miscarriage or experience some other serious ill-effect where giving birth triggers off an existing maternal disease. The comparison is not one of like with like. The argument was phoney, but it was used by some doctors. One must be fair. It was not used by many. The Lane committee said that that was wrong. The Select Committee also took evidence on that subject and subsequently said that it was wrong. Moreover, the medical profession—the BMA and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—took the view when the Lane committee was sitting that there were great abuses and wished to have them stopped.
      Mr. Archer: The Lane committee, having said that some doctors were using the approach that the hon. Gentleman has described, added that that approach was clearly wrong, that it was a misconstruction of the 1967 Act and that abuses of an Act are not prevented by amending legislation. It recommended that there should not be an amendment.
      Sir B. Braine: That is correct. The Lane committee did not recommend legislation. However, the Committee having made its recommendations and reported, the situation of abuse continued. There was continued public anxiety. The Select Committee sat some considerable time after the Lane committee had reported. It
      1786
      followed the James White Bill. The House gave a substantial majority to that Bill on Second Reading, on the understanding that the Bill should be remitted to a Select Committee. At the end of the day the Select Committee, lead by a distinguished Privy Councillor from the Labour Party, recommended that there should be legislation. It recommended that the issue should be dealt with by legislative means. When nothing happened my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) introduced his Bill, and when nothing happened after that we had the Bill which is now before us.
      Dr. M. S. Miller rose—
      Sir B. Braine: I shall give way later. On both Bills the House gave on Second Reading a substantial majority to the principle that abortion on demand favoured by the application of the phoney statistical argument should be dealt with by amending the law. That is what we are talking about this morning. The House has already decided—I am sure that this was the reasoning behind the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health—that by the insertion of the word "substantially" the statistical argument could not be used.
      The only argument that is left is whether there are other reasons than the statistical probability that should be weighed. The word "factor" is used in the amendment. Are there other reasons why we should accept the amendment and why we should not rely on the word "substantially" already in the Bill? I listened carefully to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin). I found it difficult to understand what other factors there could be. If, for example, we are concerned, as we should be, with the possibility of handicap, that is dealt with already.
      I tried to make it plain at the outset of our debates that the Bill makes no alteration in that respect to the existing law. I was baffled, therefore, by the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It seemed that it was not carried through to its logical conclusion. As no reason had been given for the proposed change, I decided that I could vote in conscience for the closure, despite the fact that if the amendment had

      1787
      been tabled at an earlier stage and discussed in Committee I do not think that we would have been very worried about it. It is not a matter on which to go to the stake.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I ask the hon. Gentleman to take it from me that after careful thought about the position in which the House found itself on 29 February I tabled the amendment at the earliest possible date. It has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time. It has been on it long enough for two conservative Members to add their names to it. If the hon. Gentleman had the doubt that he is now expressing about "factor", I am sorry that he did not intervene to ask me to elucidate. I would have explained to him that a factor must clearly be one of the factors contemplated by the original Act. This is an insertion into that Act.
      Sir B. Braine: I follow that. There are two possible factors that would occur at once to a layman who was not particularly well informed about the contents of the Act or those of the Bill. First, a doctor must take into account a whole host of factors, one of the most important of which is that if the child is born it might be seriously handicapped. As I have explained, that is something out-with the Bill. The Bill does not seek in any way to alter the existing law.
      Another important factor might be the social environment of the family and effect on the health and well-being of the other children. That would weigh heavily with those of us who understand the reality of the problem. There again, the Bill makes no alteration to the existing law.
      I was looking for an additional factor —factor X or factor Y—and it does not appear. It is for that reason that I intervene to say that what matters to me is whether "substantially" ends the pernicious practice of abortion on demand, which the House never intended when it enacted the 1967 Act, I consider that it does.
      Mrs. Renée Short rose—
      Sir B. Braine: The hon. Lady is an exception.
      Mrs. Short: The hon. Gentleman has said twice that there is abortion on demand. Will he give the House the evidence that he has that that situation obtains?
      Sir B. Braine: I do not need to do that. If the hon. Lady goes to the Library and studies the Lane committee's report, and while there if she also studies the report of the Select Committee, including the evidence that was given to it at considerable length, she will have the answer. The plain fact is that there are many doctors in this land who know perfectly well that the law is being broken. I have sent the evidence of one case to the Department of Health and Social Security. I am eagerly awaiting the Department's action. I am anxious to know whether the Department will act with the same alacrity about these cases—
      Mrs. Short: Where is the Minister? Will he come and answer this?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) appears to have resumed his seat. Will he indicate to whom he is giving way?
      Mrs. Short: Come on, speak up.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: To whom is the hon. Gentleman giving way? I understood that he was giving way to someone.
      Sir B. Braine: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). However, I think that I have given the hon. Lady sufficient rope on which she may hang her argument. I shall leave it at that.
      I say in conclusion that—
      Dr. M. S. Miller rose—
      Sir B. Braine: The House has already made a decision on principle on the word "substantially". I do not understand why we continue to rehearse the argument over and over again. I accept the motives behind the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a fair-minded man and he puts before the House a reasoned argument. I tell him that the statistical argument that some doctors have been using for years—they have not been challenged because of the defect in the law—is phoney.
      Dr. Oonagh McDonald rose—
      Sir B. Braine: It is an argument that should not be adduced in this debate.
      Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir B. Braine: I have already concluded.
      Mrs. Short: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had statements by supporters of the Bill and by its opponents, based on legal arguments for and against. We have asked repeatedly for a Law Officer to appear. That has not happened.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is obviously about to ask a question, but she has already asked one that—
      Mrs. Short: No.
      12 noon
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is forgetting herself. She has already asked one question that has nothing to do with the Chair. If her second question is posed in a similar vein, we shall just be wasting time.
      Mrs. Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has made serious allegations about the way in which the Department is operating the Act. I think that the House ought to hear the views of the Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an interesting observation, but it has nothing to do with the Chair. Such allegations are on both sides of the House and are part of the debate.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: I do not intend to intervene at any great length. I should just like to deal with several of the points made by the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I always listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. I remember the days when he was a junior Minister. I think that his attitude towards this matter was slightly different then from what it is today. He then paid great attention to what the British Medical Association felt, and I think that he still has a high regard for the medical
      1790
      profession. However, it ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to insinuate or imply that there is widespread abuse of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is no perfect Act of Parliament. Regardless of what it is that we enact, there will always be loopholes for abuse, but one does not plug such loopholes by making it impossible or extremeley difficult for people who require the services to obtain them. The hon. Gentleman must accept that.
      The hon. Gentleman talked about phoney statistics. That was a rather graphic way of describing what really applies to all statistics. He is right to suggest that the statistics could be phoney. I pointed out in an earlier intervention that a whole range of conditions is taken into consideration by a doctor. The general statistical argument is only one factor in the specific statistical indication that applies in any individual case. For example, if I were a gynaecologist who carried out abortions I would make a distinction between statistics in the case of a young healthy woman and those applying to an older woman. I would take into consideration not only the age of such patients but their history, as well as their physical and mental examinations.
      A whole series of statistics is built up. It would be wrong—I am sure that it is wrong within the terms of the 1967 Act —for a doctor to perform an abortion under the cloak of the so-called general statistical rule. I certainly would play no part in that.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I do not think that the amendment is as good as leaving the original Act alone, but at least it would undo some of the potential damage that could be caused if the word "substantially" was left in. It would mean that in forming an opinion, a doctor would regard the word "substantially" as being omitted from the subsection. However, many other factors would be involved, because as I have indicated, each case is considered on its merits and on the condition of the individual patient.
      I cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for York on the question of a substantial risk. It is not always the case that a 1 in 100 risk of a patient dying is not a substantial risk.For

      1791
      example, in conditions of grave seriousness, such as a cancer operation, a 1 in 100 risk is not a big risk. It is a small risk, because the mortality rate from the condition is very high. But in other circumstances, a 1 in 100 risk is not an acceptable one. It might be too high a risk. All I am saying is that it is extremely difficult to arrive at any kind of yardstick by which this could be judged.
      We are entering the realm of the doctor's clinical judgment, but whether one agrees with everything that the medical profession does is another story. However, such opinions interfere with clinical judgment, and that is the great problem with regard to the clause and what the amendment seeks to do. It is an extremely dangerous prospect from the medical point of view. I would hate to be placed in a situation in which, before I performed any kind of operation or gave advice to a patient, I would have to take legal advice first.
      Legal advice does not relate to the medical risk, but rather to what the legal risk is. That could well apply in the case of a gynaecologist who refused to carry out an abortion because he did not think that the risk was substantial. I gave an example earlier of a woman with a moderate or even mild degree of high blood pressure. The gynaecologist might consider that the degree of high blood pressure was not sufficient to warrant the word "substantial". But what would happen if the woman died? By definition, it must have been substantial. If the patient's husband then raised an action against the doctor for not carrying out the abortion—and that is a situation that could well happen—the doctor would be placed in an extremely difficult position.
      It would take only one such case for the gynaecologist to seek legal opinion, not on the medical aspect but on the legal aspect. The legal opinion would have to say "In my opinion the following is the lesser of the two legal risks, but it is up to you, as a doctor, to decide what the medical risk is". That is a Catch 22 situation. In such circumstances, I do not believe that a doctor should be placed in a different situation from that in which he is placed with regard to other operations. Surgeons per-
      1792
      form many extremely serious operations, such as heart, brain or kidney operations, but they are not subject to a law or regulation that says that the doctor must take other considerations into account. That is perfectly right.
      The argument could be—this is the nub of the whole debate—that in this instance doctors are dealing with something entirely different. In this case we are dealing with people who are totally opposed to abortion. I do not accept that such people believe in abortion in certain circumstances. They do not want abortions at all. What they consider to be unborn life takes total precedence over anything else. I can appreciate that point of view, and I can understand that some people hold that conviction very deeply. They say that there are no circumstances whatever in which abortion is permissible. I can understand that, but they should not cloak that fundamental attitude in an aura of wanting to improve the Act, when they really want to destroy it.
      Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend has touched on the problem with regard to compromise. Some of us would have considered compromise, but what has hardened the minds of so many hon. Members is the cynical opportunism behind the attitude that my hon. Friend has described. I also have a great respect for people who say that abortion is an assault on life and that they are against it, just as they are against hanging. But when people try these cynical manoeuvres that we have seen one can only assume that it is a foot in the door, that they want to change the whole thing and return to the appalling situation that existed prior to 1967. That is what is so cynical and unacceptable about their argument.
      Dr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has touched on what is at the heart of many of the problems that we have been discussing for such a long time.
      Sir Bernard Braine: The House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the considered view of a medical man about the difficulties facing doctors. We must pay heed to what he says. However, has he not left out of account the provision in the Act that the abortion is lawful if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the

      1793
      pregnancy should be terminated? Is that not the defence?
      Dr. Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As we have agreed previously, it is a mutual admiration society.
      We have already had considerable differences of opinion on the question whether good faith is an objective or subjective assessment. The mere fact that there is debate about that is sufficient to put doctors off. I might be satisfied with the words "good faith" were it not that there are many people who would love to get at any doctor if the Bill went through in its original form. In view of the opposition to the 1967 Act, manifest over the past few years, there may be a certain amount of vindictiveness. The situation is slightly different from what it was. I do not accept that the words "good faith" are sufficient to protect the doctor.
      I can understand the ethical aspect. I am not in favour of abortion on demand or request. I am not in favour of any operation on request. It should be for discussion between the patient, doctor and others concerned. Although I respect contrary views, I cannot see, in a matter affecting the life or health of my patient, that abortion differs substantially —if I may use the word—from any other condition that I am entitled to consider as a doctor. That may be a fundamental difference between me and those who consider that a regard for human life must apply from the very moment of conception. I respect their views, but I do not see it that way, and I believe that the vast majority of the people in the country agree with me.
      Phoney statistics have been produced. I have a letter claiming that the statistics that I gave in an article can be matched with statistics to prove the opposite. It depends on the questions asked. If I were asked whether I believed in killing unborn babies, my answer would be "No". Some people say that abortion is killing unborn babies. That is another argument, and I do not agree with it.
      The promoter of the Bill has been bemused by many of the machinations and debates from both sides of the House in the past few months. I respect his sincerity, but it is too late for him to claim that no compromise was ever on the
      1794
      cards. Had he contented himself with the 24-week limit there would have been no difficulty.
      12.15 pm
      The sponsors of the Bill were far too greedy. They were taken in by the confined, almost incestuous, attitude that people have when they do not see anyone else's view. They believe that the country is with them and that they have more support than they really have. We all fall into that trap from time to time. When 20 or 30 people shout something at us, we imagine that they represent millions.
      From my experience in medical practice over a long period, in Parliament, and from representing two constituencies, I have no doubt that the vast majority do not agree. If one walks only among one's own kind and speaks to people with similar views one may get the impression that the majority agree. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to complain about lack of compromise at this stage.
      This is a thoroughly bad Bill which would have a serious effect on patients and would increase the death rate from septic abortions. Women will die. They will have abortions whether or not they are legal. The Bill would have a thoroughly bad effect on the medical profession.
      Mr Clement Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that after yesterday's fine example in the other place thoroughly bad Bills can be remedied?
      Dr. Miller: That may be so, but it was said earlier that we should not depend on that. I am pleased that the other place reached the decision that it did on the other matter.
      I am not entirely satisfied with the amendment, but it is better than what is in the, Bill at present. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) made an excellent speech, and clearly spelt out the position. The substance of his amendment would to some extent put matters right.
      The promoter of the Bill is entitled only to the 24-week limit. Once the word "substantially" was permitted to slip in—
      Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that there was a desire on the sponsors' part to compromise, which was not accepted by us. I discussed with one of the most prominent sponsors of the Bill the possibility of the Bill's resting on the 24-week limit and nothing else. He said that he did not believe that he would be able to persuade his colleagues to leave out "substantially". That is where the attempt at compromise broke down, which indicates who is responsible.
      Dr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has today adopted a slightly less hard attitude. The hon. Gentleman previously used such words as "might"—and said that the continuance of the preganancy might involve substantial risk or injury. The word is "would", not "might". It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to use softer words, but in legislation we do not use "might". We use "would", which is different.
      The amendment so ably advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend will help, and I support it.
      Mr. Abse: I have already intimated in the intervention that I made during the speech in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), the former Attorney-General, was spelling out his view that I had more than sympathy with the amendment that he had placed on the Order Paper. There are two goals in the minds of those who may have been supporters of the Bill that are becoming confused. One has to ask oneself whether there is a desire on the part of those who support the Bill to change the criteria. Secondly, one has to ask whether there is a desire, on the other hand, or in addition, on the part of others who support the Bill, to bring to an end the statistical argument.
      I have always held the view, like the Select Committee, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has pointed out, that an argument was being deployed, however fallaciously, and however erroneous an interpretation of the law it may have been, to the effect that it was possible for a doctor to use the so-called statistical argument without fear
      1796
      of any action being taken by the law. That is a genuine belief. There was a fear that this argument was being deployed and a belief that it was being practised. It is true that there are few doctors or professors who would formally declare their view that the statistical argument justified an abortion in almost every circumstance, but they are known to exist.
      Mr. William Hamilton: One.
      Mr. Abse: It was a view that was peddled and articulated, by however few people.
      Mr. Hamilton: One.
      Mr. Abse: It meant that the Lane committee, although expressing its disapproval of the argument, was nevertheless compelled to express an opinion. When the Select Committee had to address its mind to the issue, it was abundantly clear that there was a view, on the evidence, although possibly expressed by only one professor, that this was being practised.
      Mr. Norman Buchan rose—
      Mr. Abse: I shall give way later. I should like to develop my argument. That opinion is in existence. There is a belief, however incorrect, that this enables abortion on request to take place within the existing law.
      I have said from the beginning that we live in a plural society. The House has a duty to try to reconcile the conflicting views. Whether or not it is a belief that is well-founded, and whether it is practised only idiosyncratically by a small group, an opinion exists that because of this weakness within the law, it is possible for abortion on request to take place. If that opinion can be met without, in my view, affecting the criteria, it should be done. Others hold a different view. They want to alter the criteria. I have made clear by my interventions in this and many other debates that I believe that if the criteria were applied, as they were intended to be applied, this is the basis on which a plural society can live.
      A considerable change has been made by using the word "substantially". I accept that. It was decided by the House.

      1797
      The House wanted that, I believe, because it wanted to end the statistical argument. Some people, no doubt, voted for it because they wanted to attack the criteria as well. I believe that the House voted for it in order to lay at rest the statistical argument. However, it has been pointed out that, apart from serious technical blemishes that arise in the Bill, as a result of "substantially" being left in, bare and in its nudity, and despite the technical consequences indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General, it is possible that it could subvert the criteria as well. It could go beyond what was the intention of most hon. Members, certainly of the Select Committee, and certainly the intention lying behind the Lane committee report that a statistical argument, in belief or in practice, should not continue.
      Mr. Buchan: This is the second time that my hon. Friend has called in aid the Lane committee. Will he make clear that the Lane committee rejected that argument as fallacious and, furthermore, said that there should be no change in the criteria? He must not mislead the House.
      Mr. Abse: The Lane committee made it clear that the argument was being deployed and believed that it was wrong. The committee therefore did not recommend any legislative change. As the hon. Member for Essex, South-East pointed out, after the Lane committee had reported the belief that the statistical argument could be deployed, or could protect anybody from being charged for any criminal offence in respect of the Abortion Act, was continued. As a result, when the evidence came before the Select Committee it came to the conclusion that the statistical argument had to be met by legislation but that the criteria were matters for the House.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Since the words "serious" and "substantial" affect the criteria, and since the objective, as my hon. Friend indicates, was to destroy the statistical argument as a basis for wholesale abortion on demand, would it not have been better to have produced an amendment that embodied that kind of fear, using the word "statistical" and making it incumbent upon the medical profession to indicate that it would not
      1798
      be permitted to use the whole general field of statistics, but had to apply the statistics in the particular instance in which it was operating?
      Mr. Abse: The original Bill, even this Bill, contained the word "substantially" The word "serious" was inserted in Committee, but, happily in my view, was deleted by the House when the Bill came back. My hon. Friend criticises the lack of clarity in the attempt to identify the statistical argument. I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but, having read the proceedings and heard the speech of the Minister, I would point out that this was the argument of the Minister. The Minister made it abundantly clear that, should there be such a statistical argument— the words have been cited already —he, the Minister, believed that the word "substantially" dealt with the mischief. It creates certain other mischiefs that have been pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General.
      Like every sensible man and woman in the House, I wish to bring this debate to an end. I treat seriously the view put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. What is the fear in the minds of the sponsor and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East that justifies not accepting the amendment?
      Dr. Glyn: Is not the only possible solution to remove the word in the House of Lords?
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich has tried to deal with the problem sensibly. I share the dismay of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) at the fact that there should be such silence on the Government Front Bench. I believe that to be most reprehensible. However, as a lawyer I have more confidence in the law of my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General than that of the present Attorney-General.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is speaking in good faith, but it has been indicated to the Chair that the Government spokesman would like to contribute to the debate when the hon. Member resumes his seat.
      Mr. Abse: I shall try to come to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East and others ask what factors could come into existence other than those that are already laid down. The House must understand that the amendment seeks to make quite clear that the word "substantially" is directed not to the criteria, but only to the statistical argument, and that the factors to which it refers are those that are contained within the criteria. That is how my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich interprets his amendment. Does it achieve that effect? Does it give us an end to the statistical argument, as the majority of hon. Members want, without an assault on the criteria? believe that it does.
      Perhaps the amendment can be improved. We are not helped by the absence of the Attorney-General. Perhaps a parliamentary draftsman could improve it. However, I am certain that the amendment clearly deals with the statistical argument. It does not subvert any of the existing criteria. Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment categorically, he should leave it to the will of the House. Let him say that the arguments are complex, but that they have been heard. Let the House decide, without the Minister laying his emphasis on the argument. The Minister has had a maturational experience, which has been shared by everybody who has taken part in an abortion Bill. It would be wise to let the House decide.
      Let us remember that there will have to be another Bill if we do not use this Bill to bring the controversy to an end. The 24-week limit has been decided by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich, who has been so skilful in the interpretation of the Bill, nods his head. If we do not pass the Bill, another one will have to be considered because we must deal with the 24-weeks. We do not want to have the argument all over again. I appeal even to those with most impassioned views on either side of the argument to accept the amendment because, with the 24-week provision, that will result in an Act in which honour can be done on all sides. [HON. M1MBERS: "No"] The 24-week issue has been decided. Let us use the opportunity to end the argument and bring the Bill to the statute book, rather than
      1800
      interminably continue such joyless proceedings.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred to an incident about which he has written to my Department. We are examining that matter urgently.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) is correct in saying that the provision for termination in emergencies will not be required in section 1 of the Act as well as in clause 2 of the Bill. I am advised that in any case the existing provision in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act, unlike the new provision in clause 2 of the Bill, will not apply after an upper time limit of 24 weeks. That would be unsatisfactory as there would be two provisions covering broadly the same ground. However, that can be put right in another place.
      Dr. Glyn: If the amendment is altered in another place will the Minister be satisfied?
      Sir G. Young: I shall come to that in a moment.
      I turn to the substance of the amendment. When the Minister of State spoke about the criteria he made it clear that he had in mind the anxiety of some hon. Members that the criteria should be capable of a statistical interpretation. Accordingly, he advised that if they wished to deal with that they should vote for the retention of the word "substantially". My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General gave evidence to the Standing Committee on 4 December, so the House has had his advice on the use of the word "substantially".
      The amendment seeks to make clear that the intention of the change is to ensure that the statistical argument cannot be employed. I hope that it will meet the anxiety of the medical profession over the legal interpretation of the word "substantially" in that context. If the amendment is carried the intention of the House will be made clear and the Bill will not be gobbledegook, although some technical amendments might have to be made in another place. Broader issues have been raised about the way in which the House should proceed. The

      1801
      implications are clear, and hon. Members do not need my advice on that.
      Dr. Glyn: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot accept that motion at present.
      Mr. Mikardo: I express my personal gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) because a great deal of deep thought obviously went into the framing of the amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend guided our unsure feet carefully through the minefield of the subject's legal complications.
      I share the disgust—that word is not too strong—of my hon. Friends at the absence of the Attorney-General. At our last sitting be allowed the Minister to be his microphone without standing behind it himself. Because of a decision taken at our last sitting we need clarification about the consequences of accepting the amendment.
      It is most reprehensible that the Attorney-General is not here today. Perhaps he has stayed away because he does not like the Bill. He did not vote for it on Second Reading. As I understand it, the duties of a Law Officer are to help the House impartially both about the things that he likes and those that he does not like. Even if the Attorney-General does not like this Bill, that is no excuse for his not coming here to assist the House.
      I support the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich for reasons that I have advocated throughout the proceedings of the Bill. My reasons are that I believe that doctors should have the discretion to exercise their clinical judgment and that any attempt to hedge round the exercise of that judgment does not make life easy either for doctors or their patients and it is the patient for whom we should have the greatest care. If we attempt to curtail that discretion there is a little more profit for the lawyers but life is made harder for doctors and patients. That happens every time we try to put an arbituary limitation on the judgment of the doctor.
      We should recall that the views of two doctors are required in this context and that those views must be exercised in good
      1802
      faith. There is a double safeguard; there are two doctors and they must both act in good faith. When we attempt to put artificial constraints on doctors—in language universally condemned as obscure—we are being unhelpful.
      I fully understand why the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) did not wish to give way to hon. Members who wished to intervene during her speech. When one has had too much to drink before driving one does not wish to wind down the window when the "copper" comes along. One does not wish to be caught out. The hon. Lady knew that she was in danger of being caught out if she gave way when she referred to the language in the Bill as being gobbledegook. In so far as there is gobbledegook in this Bill it is the fault of the sponsor. The Bill is not a big Bill, but in Committee the sponsor himself admitted that no fewer than seven clauses were so badly drafted that they were incapable of amendment. They had to be taken out and redrafted.
      There was an eighth clause, which was found by the opponents of the Bill to be out of order as being beyond the scope of the long title. It had to be put in order by an amendment moved by the Opponents of the Bill. We all regretted that the sponsor of the Bill fell ill, but before the hon. Gentleman became ill he said that he intended to rip out clause 4 and replace it with a new clause. That was because the first clause 4 was gobbledegook. He did not use that word, but that is what he meant. He felt that the wording was no good, and he intended to seek the advice of the Department in order to draft a new clause 4 that was not gobbledegook.
      Unhappily the hon. Gentleman became ill and the Bill was left in the care of his lion. Friends. They liked the gobbledegook and did not want the sponsor's new clause 4. There was a classic occasion when the Committee was due to meet but could not do so because there was not a quorum. Hon. Gentlemen were arguing amongst themselves and were unable to agree which clause 4 they wished to discuss. The result was that they did not go into Committee at all. It therefore lies ill in the mouths of those hon. Members who support the Bill—least of all in the mouth of the hon. Member for Edgbaston—to talk about

      1803
      other people being responsible for putting gobbledegook into the Bill.
      I hope that something can be salvaged of this wreck along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). Talks were held at an early stage designed to produce a Bill that would meet the general will of the House as expressed in a statement by five Privy Councillors and as has been expressed by other people inside and outside this House. That attempt at a compromise broke down because some of the supporters of the Bill, though not all of them—there are hawks and "wets" among the Bill's supporters as there are in the Government—were unwilling to give up the word "substantially". That was when the compromise attempt broke down.
      12.45 pm
      We must now ask ourselves whether an acceptance of the Bill with the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend is a real solution. Some hon. Members have suggested that that might be the case, but my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) demolished that suggestion in what I thought was a masterly speech. He showed in a masterly analysis that it was not the case that the Bill would cease to be obnoxious merely because of the addition of the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend. I cast no slur upon the amendment; I support it, because it offers some improvement. But that improvement does not alter the fact that the word "substantially" remains. That is where the damage is done.
      A suggestion was made by the Under-Secretary of State that something might be done about this issue in another place. I thought that his intervention came somewhat late. He might have sought to make that point before the closure was moved, since he did not know that his intervention was going to be prevented the closure.
      At one stage I was attracted to the idea, but I resiled from it because I have become increasingly conscious that no one who relies on the other place doing something can guarantee to deliver. The other place is showing increasing tendencies to be unpredictable and, occasion-
      1804
      ally, to behave in a way contrary to the upbringing of its Members.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Almost skittish.
      Mr. Mikardo: No one, not even the Minister speaking with the authority of the Department, can guarantee to deliver. The authority of the Department of Education and Science was at work yesterday, but it could not deliver. When the Minister tells us today that he will do his best, I am sure that he means it, but he cannot guarantee success.
      If there is to be a compromise solution I fear that it will have to be produced on another occasion. The chance of obtaining it in this Session was missed and was badly bungled by the promoter of the Bill and his supporters. We must possess our soul's impatience and return to the matter yet again, definitely—I hope—for the last time.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: I intend to be brief, and I am brought to my feet only by the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who suggested that had we been prepared to accept the 24-weeks proposal and no further clauses, that would have ended the matter. That may well be his personal view, but is not the view of the organisations which, outside this place, are conducting a tremendous lobby on the subject.
      On 13 February one of those organisations, called "Life", issued a circular, presumably to its agents and allies, in which it said, among other things:
      "Our final political objective is full repeal of the 1967 Abortion Act and its replacement by a statute giving full legal protection to all unborn children from conception onwards. Since 1974 we have had our own draft Bill ready for a brave MP to take on."
      It is a wonder, in view of that, that the hon. Member who sponsored the Bill was unable to take advantage of the offer that is implied by the organisation. Many of us who participated in the Committee stage, and some of my hon. Friends who have longer histories on previous Bills on this subject, have always been aware that the real architects of these measures are those who will never be content until the 1967 Act has been removed from the statute book.
      There was not a lot of talk in Committee about compromise. The membership was divided 12 to five in favour of

      1805
      the Bill, so that it was possible for the sponsor to achieve virtually anything. In the final analysis it is votes that count, and the sponsor and his hon. Friends were well aware of that.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and for Barking (Miss Richardson) made various perfectly reasonable approaches in Committee on certain clauses, but the supporters of the Bill were fairly confident—at some stages supremely confident—that they would succeed. They were misled by the hon. Member for Essex, South East (Sir B. Braine) into believing—particularly when the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) became ill—that, given his guidance, the Bill could be successfully concluded. But even given that, the Bill was always acknowledged to be a part measure towards achieving that ultimate objective.
      The circular from "Life" continued:
      "So Mr. Corrie's Bill is a long way from our final objective. We particularly object to the clause that openly discriminates against handicapped children. Nevertheless, we decided to support the Bill in its original form because if it becomes law it would save the lives of thousands of unborn children",
      and so on. So we do not have to go far to realise that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool about the future of this Bill or any other Private Member's legislation designed to subvert the purposes of the 1967 Act were unrealistic.
      I should like to refer to a telegram received this morning. It reads:
      "I want to bring to your attention a statement which was today endorsed by the TUC women's conference in Brighton. The 50th TUC women's conference is dismayed that Parliament seems prepared to sacrifice the livelihoods of the children of broken marriages in order to curtail further a woman's rights to control her own fertility. Conference today repeats its total opposition to Mr. Corrie's Abortion (Amendment) Bill and urges all MPs to heed the advice of the whole trade union movement to reject this Bill. We plead with the Commons at this eleventh hour to consider the pain and suffering which will be inflicted on so many women and their families if this proposal becomes law, and to reject the Bill. The TUC repeats its wholehearted support for the 1967 Abortion Act and urges all MPs"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our interest is in the hon. Gentleman's views on the amendment.
      Mr. Thorne: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker—though obviously I was wrong —that the telegram was relevant to the amendment, in that it represents an up-to-date expression of opinion of a large number of women on a subject that is embraced by the amendment. The amendment relates to a deep and complex argument that exists among women about the substantial risk that arises to them in the event of their having a pregnancy for which they seek medical advice about termination.
      Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but against that background I suggest that the expression of opinion in the telegram is relevant. Perhaps I should have been more in order had I referred to the do-it-yourself pamphlets that have recently been the subject of observation by the Secretary of State for Social Services. We welcome his condemnation of those leaflets. They are relevant in terms of the substantial risks to women. They attempt to guide women on how best they may abort themselves in certain desperate circumstances. Who are the architects of these leaflets? I still hope that the Secretary of State will refer this matter to the DPP so that we can be informed about the origins of the leaflets.
      1 pm
      My main purpose is to refute the suggestion which has been made on a number of occasions, that if we accept a minor amendment to the 1967 Act relating to the period of gestation we can all happily go away feeling that, for the time being at least, the House will not be forced to consider abortion again. This is a complete misconception. As long as organisations such as the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and "Life" exist, they will be anxious to deprive women of their right to determine whether they should continue their pregnancies. We shall continue to have this sort of attempt to change the 1967 Act in radical ways and finally to repeal it completely. This will deprive women of their fundamental rights.
      Miss Jo Richardson: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as we have explored very extensively the points that are covered by the amendment. I am sure that I echo the opinions of millions of women when I say that we are glad that my right hon. and learned Friend

      1807
      the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) has been able to formulate an amendment which, to some extent, will ameliorate the damage caused two weeks ago when the House decided to retain the word "substantially".
      There is no doubt that the Bill, without the amendment, is very dangerous. I shall not repeat all the arguments about the 24-week period. We have had a decision on that. The House then voted, albeit by only three votes, to retain the word "substantially", and this sent a chill of horror down the backs of many people when they realised what the House had done. Many of them were prepared to accept the 24-week provision, but they cannot accept the word "substantially" because that makes this an illiberal Bill.
      Because of this, the Trades Union Congress women's conference at Brighton this week sent a telegram to a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has just quoted it and I am sorry that you did not allow him to finish it, Mr Deputy Speaker. That telegram was sent also to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) because the conference felt that not only Labour Members should know how they felt but that the sponsors of the Bill should realise the deep feelings of a large group of women on this issue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South also referred to the do-it-yourself kits. In many ways it is significant that these kits have appeared in the eight months since we began discussing this restrictive Bill, during which we have talked about the possibility of a return to back-street abortions if it becomes law. I am sure that our discussions and the appearance of these kits are connected. Had we not had the Bill, and had we had just one year free from any discussion of abortion, whoever is manufacturing these kits—a reprehensible action—may not have thought of doing so. The manufacturers saw this Bill as a chance to jump on the bandwagon and cash in on the problems that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayreshire has caused for many women by bringing forward this Bill.
      I am sorry that I am not able to make my next point in the presence of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B.
      1808
      Braine), as he has left the Chamber. He made constant reference to the fact that he believed that we had abortion on demand in this country. I absolutely refute that. Had we had abortion on demand, we should have had a much greater spread of National Health Services' facilities, and facilities and clinics for the BPAS, which at present do not cover the whole country. There is certainly not abortion on demand.
      The sponsors of the Bill base their claim on the fact that one doctor—Dr. Peter Huntingford—has said that from time to time he has performed abortions on women as requested. We all know that at his clinic women must be referred by a GP in the first place. He cannot just take in any woman who comes to him without a reference from a GP. Also, the fact that one doctor says that he has performed abortions on demand does not mean that this is a generality.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: Will my hon. Friend comment on a letter that I received today on this matter? It shows that 29 per cent. of abortions were performed by the NHS in Merseyside in 1979, but in 1971 51 per cent. were performed in NHS hospitals. Therefore, there has been a fal of 22 per cent. in eight years, and that does not sound like abortion on demand to me.
      Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend is right. Abortion on demand does not exist.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Another indication of the undoubted fact that it does not exist is that in my constituency the Hairmyres hospital has a gynaecology unit which does not perform abortions at all.
      Miss Richardson: That is interesting, and that situation must be repeated in many other districts and parts of the country. We should not let this debate go by without putting it firmly on the record that abortion on demand does not exist in this country. It does not exist even if there are National Health Service hospitals willing to do abortions, and not all of them are. It does not exist as long as there are BPAS clinics and they have to conform to the law. The principal problem is that there are not enough facilities for abortion within the 1967 Act, and that is an abuse which I would like to see eradicated.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is not there a further difficulty, in that we are discussing the amendment?
      Miss Richardson: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Essex, South-East was not challenged by the Chair—I do not know whether you were in the Chair at the time—when he made long references to abortion on demand. I thought that it was worth while replying to his references.
      Dr. McDonald: The reason for the insertion of the word "substantially" in the 1967 Act was the belief, entertained by some hon. Members, that abortion on demand existed. We have had numerous general allegations of this kind from many hon. Members, particularly the sponsors of the Bill, but we have not yet heard from them or from the Department whether they have any specific claims or specific evidence of dates, places and circumstances in which these abortions were carried out. Nor have we heard from the responsible Minister in the DHSS how many investigations his Department has been asked to carry out by the sponsors of the Bill and by other hon. Members who have spoken in its support into allegations that the law has been broken. Does not my hon. Friend think that the Minister should be asked to say how many allegations—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) wishes to make a speech, perhaps she will attempt to catch my eye later in the debate.
      Miss Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said, especially since she was able to bring me back to what I was saying about the word "substantially". My hon. Friend is quite right. Many people who support the Bill, both inside and outside the House, want to put into the legislation extraneous words which will make matters more difficult for doctors, precisely because they believe that abortion on demand is widely available. We know that it is not.
      I, too, was a little disappointed by the Under-Secretary's intervention in today's debate. Although on the whole it was fairly specific, it was extremely brief, as was the intervention two weeks ago by the Minister for Health. This is a very important matter. Where an interpreta-
      1810
      tion of the law is required, we are entitled to a fuller explanation from the responsible Minister in the DHSS and, in my view, from the Attorney-General. It is still not too late for the Attorney-General to explain his view of the matter, which I believe accords with that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin).
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Although I agree with my hon. Friend, I am sure that she does not wish to detract from what appeared to me, at any rate, to be pretty firm advice from the Department that this amendment could be agreed to without danger.
      Miss Richardson: Yes, indeed. I was about to welcome what the Minister said. My only criticism, if such it can be described, is that if the hon. Gentleman had elaborated on it a little more he might have gone a considerable way to persuading some of his right hon. and hon. Friends that the amendment was worthy of support.
      Dr. Glyn: The Minister went a long way towards supporting the amendment. I listened carefully to what he said. It convinced me, and I need some convincing, that if the wording was not quite right—and it never is in a Private Member's Bill—it could be put right in another place.
      Miss Richardson: I am not denying the Minister's firmness in placing his and, presumably, the Department's view of this on the record. My only criticism is that he might have elaborated on it a little—he was on his feet for only two or three minutes—simply to allow the point that he made very well to sink in.
      Before you returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I said that I did not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes. I shall abide by that. I believe that the House should support the amendment. Although it does not go the whole way towards removing the damage that has been done by including the word "substantially" in clause 1, it will go a very long way, assuming that the Bill is passed, towards helping doctors to carry out abortions which they have a legal right to perform but about which the passage of the Bill may induce them to have doubts.

      1811
      We must avoid the risk that, in the pursuance of their work, doctors are caused to have any doubt about what is right and what is wrong as a result of any action taken by Parliament. That should be as clear as possible. My right hon. and learned Friend has done the House a
      great service by producing this amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 122.

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Fitt, Gerard

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Silvester, Fred

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Marlow, Tony

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

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

      Stainton, Keith

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)

      Steen, Anthony

      Gorst, John

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mellor, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Grieve, Percy

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Tinn, James

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Murphy, Christopher

      Trippier, David

      Henderson, Barry

      Neubert, Michael

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Hooson, Tom

      Newton, Tony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Normanton, Tom

      Wakeham, John

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Ogden, Eric

      Waller, Gary

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wickenden, Keith

      Lang, Ian

      Parry, Robert

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Loveridge, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Pawsey, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      McCrindle, Robert

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Mr. Vivian Bendall and

      McCusker, H.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Ian Campbell

      McElhone, Frank

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: We now embark upon a series of Divisions.

    Clause 2

      TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY WITHOUT REGARD TO TIME LIMIT UNDER SECTION 1 IN CERTAIN GRAVE CASES
      Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 2, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 on page 3 and insert—
      '(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
      (a) that the termination is necessary to preserve the life or to prevent grave permanent

      Division No. 224]

      AYES

      [1.26 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Cook, Robin F.

      Allaun, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cope, John

      Alton, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Corrie, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Costain, A. P.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Crowther, J. S.

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

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Cunningham, George (Islington S)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Buchan, Norman

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

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Burden, F. A.

      Deakins, Eric

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dempsey, James

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dewar, Donald

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Dixon, Donald

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Carmichael, Nell

      Dobson, Frank

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cartwright, John

      Dormand, Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Douglas, Dick

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Dover, Denshore

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Conlan, Bernard

      Dunnett, Jack

      injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
      (b) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
      (2) The opinion of two registered medical practitioners shall not be required for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section in any case where the registered medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy is of the opinion, formed in good faith that the termination is immediately necessary for any purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.
      (3) Section 1(3) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section, except in a case within subsection (2) of this section.'.—[Mr. Carrie.)
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 4.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lamborn, Harry

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Eastham, Ken

      Lang, Ian

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Rooker, J. W.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Litherland, Robert

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      English, Michael

      Loveridge, John

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Rossi, Hugh

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      McCusker, H.

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Scott, Nicholas

      Ewing, Harry

      McElhone, Frank

      Sever, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

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

      Farr, John

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McKelvey, William

      Shersby, Michael

      Field, Frank

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop>

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McWilliam, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Magee, Bryan

      Silverman, Julius

      Flannery, Martin

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Silvester, Fred

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Marland, Paul

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marlow, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Fookes, Miss Janet

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

      Spearing, Nigel

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Forman, Nigel

      Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Springb'rn)

      Squire, Robin

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Stainton, Keith

      Foster, Derek

      Mates, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Maxton, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Steen, Anthony

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mellor, David

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stoddart, David

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Strang, Gavin

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mitchell, R. c. (Soton, Itchen)

      Straw, Jack

      George, Bruce

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Ginsburq, David

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Gorst, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Graham, Ted

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morton, George

      Tilley, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Tinn, James

      Grieve, Percy

      Murphy, Christopher

      Trippier, David

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

      Needham, Richard

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Neubert, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Newens, Stanley

      Wakeham, John

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Newton, Tony

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Normanton, Tom

      Waller, Gary

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ogden, Eric

      Ward, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Weetch, Ken

      Haynes, Frank

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Wellbeloved, James

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Paisley, Rev Ian

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Palmer, Arthur

      Welsh, Michael

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Park, George

      Wheeler, John

      Homewood, William

      Parris, Matthew

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

      Hooson, Tom

      Parry, Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Huckfield, Les

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pawsey, James

      Winnick, David

      John, Brynmor

      Pendry, Tom

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Wright, Sheila

      Kerr, Russell

      Race, Reg

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. Vivian Bendall and

      Knox, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Mr. Ian Campbell.

      NOES

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      O'Neill, Martin

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 91, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'sections 1 to 1B' and insert 'sections 1 and 1A'.—[Mr. Corrie.]

      Division No. 225]

      AYES

      [1.38 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Field, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Allaun, Frank

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Alton, David

      Fitt, Gerard

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Ancram, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Archer, Rt Hon Pater

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Morton, George

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

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

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Forman, Nigel

      Needham, Richard

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Forrester, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Foster, Derek

      Newens, Stanley

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Newton, Tony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Normanton, Tom

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Ogden, Eric

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Bidwell, Sydney

      George, Bruce

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Ginsburg, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Park, George

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Gorst, John

      Parris, Matthew

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Graham, Ted

      Parry, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grieve, Percy

      Pawsey, James

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Brinton, Tim

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hardy, Peter

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Race, Reg

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Rathbone, Tim

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Rhodes, James, Robert

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Richardson, Jo

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Henderson, Barry

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Buchan, Norman

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Burden, F. A.

      Homewood, William

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hooson, Tom

      Rooker, J. W.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Huckfield, Les

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cartwright, John

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Sever, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Kerr, Russell

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Shersby, Michael

      Cohen, Stanley

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Knox, David

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Cook, Robin F.

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cope, John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Silverman, Julius

      Corrie, John

      Lang, Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Costain, A P

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Cowans, Harry

      Litherland, Robert

      Soley, Clive

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Loveridge, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Crowther, J. S.

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Cryer, Bob

      McCusker, H.

      Squire, Robin

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stailard, A. W.

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

      McElhone, Frank

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Deakins, Eric

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Steen, Anthony

      Dempsey, James

      McKelvey, William

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Dewar, Donald

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Stoddart, David

      Dixon, Donald

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Dobson, Frank

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Dormand, Jack

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Straw, Jack

      Douglas, Dick

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Dover, Denshore

      Marlow, Tony

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Dubs, Alfred

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

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mates, Michael

      Tilley, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Maxton, John

      Tinn, James

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Trippier, David

      English, Michael

      Mellor, David

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Viggers, Peter

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Wakeham, John

      Ewing, Harry

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Farr, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Waller, Garry

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ward, John

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 2.

      Weetch, Ken

      Whitlock, William

      Wright, Sheila

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wickenden, Keith

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

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

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Welsh, Michael

      Winnick, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

      Wheeler, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Vivian Bendall and

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Mr. Ian Campbell.

      NOES

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. William Hamilton and

      Mr. Stan Thorne.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 92, in page 3, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40.—[Mr. Corrie.]

      Division No. 226]

      AYES

      [1.50 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Dixon, Donald

      Knox, David

      Allaun, Frank

      Dobson, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Alton, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Lamborn, Harry

      Ancram, Michael

      Douglas, Dick

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dover, Denshore

      Leighton, Ronald

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Eadie, Alex

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Eastham, Ken

      McElhone, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      English, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Ewing, Harry

      McWilliam, John

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Farr, John

      Marland, Paul

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Marlow, Tony

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Field, Frank

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

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Fitt, Gerard

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

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Flannery, Martin

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Maxton, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Brinton, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Mellor, David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Forrester, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Buchan, Norman

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Burden, F. A.

      George, Bruce

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Morton, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gorst, John

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Canavan, Dennis

      Graham, Ted

      Murphy, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Needham, Richard

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Neubert, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Greenway, Harry

      Newens, Stanley

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Grieve, Percy

      Newton, Tony

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

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

      Normanton, Tom

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ogden, Eric

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Cohen, Stanley

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Cook, Robin F.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Cope, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Palmer, Arthur

      Corrie, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Park, George

      Costain, A.P.

      Henderson, Barry

      Parris, Matthew

      Cowans, Harry

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Parry, Robert

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Homewood, William

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Crowther, J. S.

      Hooson, Tom

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cryer, Bob

      Huckfield, Les

      Pawsey, James

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Deakins, Eric

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Race, Reg

      Dempsey, James

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Rathbone, Tim

      Dewar, Donald

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 3.

      Renton, Tim

      Stallard, A. W.

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Waller, Garry

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Ward, John

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Steen, Anthony

      Weetch, Ken

      Rooker, J. W.

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Stoddart, David

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

      Rossi, Hugh

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Welsh, Michael

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

      Strang, Gavin

      Wheeler, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Straw, Jack

      Whitlock, William

      Sever, John

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Wickenden, Keith

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

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tilley, John

      Wright, Sheila

      Silverman, Julius

      Tinn, James

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Silvester, Fred

      Trippier, David

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      TELLERS FOR THE A y

      Soley, Clive

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Ian Campbell and

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wakeham, John

      Mr. Vivian Bendall

      Squire, Robin

      NOES

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Richardson, Jo

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      M.. William Hamilton and

      Mr. Stan Thorne

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 3

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4 OF PRINCIPAL ACT
      Amendment proposed, No. 88, in page 4, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.—[Mr. Mikardo.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made.
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      2 pm
      Sir Bernard Braine(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that some hon. Members are quite deliberately languishing in the Lobbies in the knowledge that by holding up the proceedings in that way the House will not be able to proceed to a vote, which the overwhelming majority of hon. Members wish to have.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): If hon. Members are not

      Division No. 227]

      AYES

      [2.03 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Allaun, Frank

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Archer, Rt Han Peter

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

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

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Buchan, Norman

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Burden, F. A.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Carmichael, Neil

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      passing through the Lobbies as speedily as they should, that is wrong, and the necessary inquiries should be made. It is not a matter for me at the moment.
      Mr. Eric Ogden(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was one of those who was languishing in the Aye Lobby. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Essex. South-East (Sir B. Braine) was referring to me, because he did not specify to which Lobby he was referring. Since I was one of the last to go through the Lobby I did so with the greatest expedition that I could manage. Perhaps Southendus sciaticus had something to do with it. No one, to my knowledge, has been languishing in the Lobbies. There are better places to languish.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not clear whether the languishing has finished. If it has not, I hope that it will be drawn to my attention immediately and I shall take measures.
      The House having divided: Ayes 157, Noes 82.

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Ogden, Eric

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cook, Robin F.

      Hardy, Peter

      Park, George

      Cope, John

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Parris, Matthew

      Corrie, John

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cowans, Harry

      Haynes, Frank

      Pawsey, James

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pendry, Tom

      Cryer, Bob

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      Homewood, William

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

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

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Richardson, Jo

      Deakins, Eric

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Dempsey, James

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh

      Dewar, Donald

      Lamborn, Harry

      Sever, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dormand, Jack

      Leighton, Ronald

      Short, Mrs Renee

      Douglas, Dick

      Litherland, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dover, Denshore

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      Dubs, Alfred

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Soley, Clive

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      McElhone, Frank

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Eastham, Ken

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Marland, Paul

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Marlow, Tony

      Straw, Jack

      Evans, John (Newton)

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

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Ewing, Harry

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Farr, John

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

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Field, Frank

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Viggers, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Mates, Michael

      Wakeham, John

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Maxton, John

      Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Weetch, Ken

      Forman, Nigel

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Wheeler, John

      Foster, Derek

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Whitlock, William

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Winnick, David

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Morton, George

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      George, Bruce

      Murphy, Christopher

      Wright, Sheila

      Ginsburg, David

      Needham, Richard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gorst, John

      Newens, Stanley

      Mr. Vivian Bendall and

      Graham, Ted

      Normanton, Tom

      Mr. Ian Campbell.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Hooson, Tom

      Rathbone, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Huckfield, Les

      Renton, Tim

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sandelson, Neville

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Shersby, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Lambie, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lang, Ian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Strang, Gavin

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      McKelvey, William

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Mellor, David

      Tilley, John

      Cohen, Stanley

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Tinn, James

      Costain, A.P.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Crowther, J. S.

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Dixon, Donald

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Waller, Garry

      English, Michael

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Ward, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Newton, Tony

      Welsh, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      O'Neill, Martin

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Greenway, Harry

      Parry, Robert

      Grieve, Percy

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Mr. Stan Thorne and

      Hawksley, Warren

      proctor, K. Harvey

      Mr. William Hamilton.

      Henderson, Barry

      Race, Reg

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 4

      WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF PREMISES
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 5.—[Mr. Mikardo.]

      Division No. 228]

      AYES

      [2.17 pm

      Abse, Leo

      Field, Frank

      Needham, Richard

      Allaun, Frank

      Flannery, Martin

      Newens, Stanley

      Ancram, Michael

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Newton, Tony

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ogden, Eric

      Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

      Foster, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Park, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      George, Bruce

      Parris, Matthew

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Ginsburg, David

      Parry, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

      Gorst, John

      Pawsey, James

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Graham, Ted

      Pendry, Tom

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grieve, Percy

      Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hardy, Peter

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Richardson, Jo

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Haynes, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Brinton, Tim

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sandelson, Neville

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

      Sever, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Homewood, William

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hooson, Tom

      Shore. Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Huckfield, Les

      Short, Mrs Renee

      Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Silverman, Julius

      Buchan, Norman

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Burden, F. A.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knox, David

      Stanley, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Lambie, David

      Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

      Cartwright, John

      Lamborn, Harry

      Stoddart, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Lang, Ian

      Strang, Gavin

      Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Straw, Jack

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Leighton, Ronald

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Litherland, Robert

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

      Cook, Robin F.

      Loveridge, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Cope, John

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Corrie, John

      McCusker, H.

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

      Costain, A.P.

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Trippier, David

      Cowans, Harry

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Viggers, Peter

      Crowther, J. S.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Wakeham, John

      Cryer, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Waller, Garry

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Ward, John

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

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Weetch, Ken

      Deakins, Eric

      McWilliam, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Marland, Paul

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

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Welsh, Michael

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Wheeler, John

      Dormand, Jack

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

      Whitlock, William

      Douglas, Dick

      Mates, Michael

      Wickenden, Keith

      Dover, Denshore

      Maxton, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Dubs, Alfred

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mellor, David

      Winnick, David

      Eadie, Alex

      Mlkardo, Ian

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Eastham, Ken

      Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

      Wright, Sheila

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Ewing, Harry

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Mr. Stan Thorne and

      Farr, John

      Morton, George

      Mr. William Hamilton.

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Murphy, Christopher

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Ian

      Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dempsey, James

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dixon, Donald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cohen, Stanley

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 40.

      English, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Normanton, Tom

      Tinn, James

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

      Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

      Greenway, Harry

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Renton, Tim

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McElhone, Frank

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Mr Reg Race and

      Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Mr. John Tilley.

      Marlow, Tony

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday 4 July.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear the names of the Bills that are being called.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I think that it would be convenient if I delayed proceedings for a few moments until the House clears. Having regard to the intervention of the hon. Member, it may be that I shall be doing a disservice if I do not put the first Bill to the House again.

ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

TOUR OPERATORS (CONTROL) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill not printed.

SOCIAL SECURITY (PAYMENT OF BENEFIT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

ACCESS TO COMMONS AND OPEN COUNTRY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

SHERIFF OFFICERS AND WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

SCOTTISH ANGLERS TRUST BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOT-TERIES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 March.

HYPNOTISM BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

STAMP DUTY (ABOLITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 July.

MR. G. S. FAHEY (HILLINGDON HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question propsed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Cope.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am very grateful for the Adjournment motion, which gives me the opportunity of raising in the House a long-standing grievance that has been endured by my
1830
constituent, Mr. G. S. Fahey, of 24 Drayton Gardens, West Drayton. It has taken me many months to succeed in the ballot in order to raise this matter and it is perhaps timely that I should do so today, as it is my constituent's 21st wedding anniversary.
The grievance results from the way in which Mr. Fahey alleges that he was dismissed from his job as an internal ambulance driver by the Hillingdon hospital management committee, as it then was, on 31 December 1970. My constituent claims that his case was so badly handled by the committee that he was humiliated and that he received no compensation for the loss of his job. He also claims that he has endured considerable physical pain ever since his dismissal and that, quite apart from the effect that this has had On his health, it has caused considerable distress to his wife, who has cared for him so devotedly during this period, in which she has suffered two heart attacks.
The only financial consideration that Mr. Fahey received following his dismissal was a short-service gratuity of £1,078 under the National Health Service superannuation scheme. This, however, was no compensation for the loss of his job.
The background to the case is that Mr. Fahey joined the staff of Hillingdon hospital in 1961 as a general porter. In 4 December of that year he transferred to the post of internal ambulance driver. This post he held and carried out to the satisfaction of his employers until, on 1 March 1970, he suffered a shoulder injury while helping to transport a deceased patient to the mortuary.
This injury—sustained, as it was, in the line of duty—resulted in Mr. Fahey's having to take an extended period of sick leave, which lasted for about six and a half months. He was signed off by his doctor in September 1970 as being fit for light duties. The length of the period of sick leave demonstrates the extend of his shoulder injury, which appears to have been severe and which caused him considerable pain. Although he was certified as being fit for light duties, this period of sick leave lasted until 31 October 1970.
The House will appreciate that Mr. Fahey's job as an ambulance driver included heavy duties such as lifting and carrying. As he was unable to undertake these duties, my constituent believes that

1831
the hospital should have made every attempt to find him an alternative post of a kind commensurate with the job he had done previously. I mention this because it is important to bear in mind that Mr. Fahey had been an employee of the hospital since 1961. It therefore seems reasonable that the hospital should have made a really strong attempt to find him something more suitable until his sickness had been overcome. I understand that the hospital claims that it made an alternative light job available to Mr. Fahey. However, my constituent strongly denies this.
The question whether any attempt was made by the hospital management should perhaps be judged on the basis that in September he was transferred to the post of swill and refuse labourer, at a lower rate of pay. Prior to that, the hospital had said that there was no light job available. This post, the hospital maintained, was the only light duty post available in the hospital. Although my constituent did not refuse this transfer—I emphasise that he did not refuse it—the job was in no way similar to that of an internal ambulance driver. Not only was it lower paid; Mr. Fahey felt humiliated that such a transfer could even be contemplated, bearing in mind that he had given excellent service for eight years.
The wisdom of offering this post of swill and refuse labourer to Mr. Fahey was commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who at that time was Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in a letter to Dame Irene Ward, who had raised the matter with him. He said:
"The wisdom of offering this post to Mr. Fahey can perhaps be questioned."
It is clear that my hon. Friend was not at all sure that the offer by the hospital management committtee was reasonable. This must have been realised by the hospital, because shortly afterwards Mr. Fahey was informed that the transfer had not been confirmed, that he would continue to be paid as a driver, and that any back pay owing as a result of the transfer would be paid as soon as possible.
Mr. Fahey returned to his post as an internal ambulance driver on 2 November 1970, on the basis that he should get back to full capacity before returning to his normal duties. However, in November 1970 he was referred to the medical officer
1832
in the staff health unit for a further medical examination. I understand that the medical officer certified that there was no prospect of an early recovery of Mr. Fahey's lifting ability and that, since he would not therefore be capable of a full range of duties as an ambulance driver, retirement on incapacity grounds was recommended. I stress the words "incapacity grounds".
That Mr. Fahey was permanently physically incapacitated seems to he in no doubt. Again, I can do no better than quote the letter that the then Minister wrote to Dame Irene Ward:
"It was of course extremely unfortunate for Mr. Fahey that the injury to his shoulder became permanent incapacity."
I stress those words—"permanent incapacity".
The crux of this case is that the Hillingdon hospital management committee accepted that Mr. Fahey could carry out only light duties following his return to work after his accident. The hospital claims that every effort was made to find him a job with light duties and that it could not do so. Mr. Fahey strongly disputes this. As a result, Mr. Fahey was retired on medical grounds a year before he would have retired in the normal way, at the age of 65, in December 1971.
My constituent believes that the hospital management committee made no real attempt to find him a job but simply wanted to get rid of him as he could no longer carry out his duties as an ambulance driver. I have already said that the job that he was offered was of a menial nature. It humiliated him, and he certainly did not feel able to accept it. Therefore, as a result of the findings of the staff medical officer, it seems that he was unfairly dismissed, with no compensation for his years of loyal service.
That Mr. Fahey was a loyal, hardworking and trustworthy ambulance driver is not questioned. My constituent is an old soldier and very proud of that fact. He served as a driver class 1A in the Royal Army Service Corps from 1936 until his release in 1945. He served his country at Dunkirk. His release certificate, which is signed by his commanding officer, states:
"Driver Fahey has a most excellent record of service during the war. He is a very capable driver of all types of vehicles and has an accident-free record. Has experience of break-

1833
down and recovery work and general maintenance of mechanical transport. Sober, hardworking and very trustworthy."
I mention this simply to illustrate the character of my constituent, who has suffered so much during the past 10 years.
To sum up, Mr. Fahey asserts that because the hospital could not or would not try to find him suitable light duties following his return to work it dismissed him on these medical grounds.
Why was Mr Fahey retired in that way after more than eight years of loyal service? He had only 12 months to go before reaching the normal age of retirement. Surely it would have been more gracious to have found him some light duties job other than that of a swill labourer for those few months before his retirement. It is hard to believe that some light duties job could not have been found in a large hospital such as Hillingdon hospital. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider that point.
Why did Mr. Fahey not receive any compensation for the loss of his job? As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash said, he suffered "permanent incapacity" as a result of an accident that was sustained at work in the line of duty. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points with some care, even if he cannot reply in detail today. Perhaps he would consider also whether Mr. Fahey would be treated in that manner in the different climate of employer-employee relations that exists 10 years later, in 1980. Would not Mr. Fahey be able to claim that he had been unfairly dismissed if he were treated in that way today?
I hope that my hon. Friend will help me to secure a just and gracious settlement of a long-standing grievance that has caused so much suffering to my constituent. It has brought his good name into question. Perhaps consideration could be given to a small ex gratia payment, which would demonstrate that he should have been treated in a more generous and considerate manner.
2.46 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has for some years now been diligently pursuing the case of his constituent Mr. G. S. Fahey. That is
1834
to be expected from an hon. Member who has established such a good reputation as a constituency Member. I am glad that we are able to have this debate to clarify the position on the various issues raised. No one who has listened to my hon. Friend can fail to have sympathy for Mr. Fahey. The basic facts are not in dispute.
I understand that Mr. Fahey joined the staff of Hillingdon hospital as a general porter in September 1961, and transferred to the post of internal ambulance driver on 10 December 1961. From then until 1970, a period of more than eight years, he was employed as an internal ambulance driver and there is nothing to show that his service was anything other than satisfactory. Indeed, I understand that on at least one occasion he was commended by the secretary of the management committee for his vigilance and prompt action in frustrating the theft of petrol from a hospital vehicle. I endorse the personal commendation about Mr. Fahey that has been referred to.
While helping to transport a deceased patient to the mortuary on 1 March 1970 Mr. Fahey unhappily injured his shoulder, and that led to an extended period of sick leave. He was signed off by his general practitioner in September 1970 as fit for "light duties", although he in fact remained on sick leave until 31 October 1970. His pent in the ambulance department included not only driving but such "heavy" duties as lifting and carrying; indeed it was while undertaking such duties that Mr. Fahey injured his shoulder in the first place. The management, therefore, tried to find him an alternative "light" job within the hospital. The only "light duty" post available within the hospital was the post of swill and refuse labourer, and in September he was transferred to that post, at a lower rate of pay. While such a transfer might seem inappropriate for a man with restricted ability to lift, I am assured that in fact this post involved only "light" lifting. When I read the background to this case I queried that action. However, it appeared that. that was the only job available that involved no lifting. I understand and sympathise with Mr. Fahey's reaction when he was offered that post.
Mr. Fahey later objected to this transfer, and on 29 October he was told that as the transfer had not yet been confirmed—Mr. Fahey was at that stage still on

1835
sick leave—he would continue to be paid as a driver. As the transfer had resulted in a lower rate of pay, and Mr. Fahey's sickness benefit was still being made up to half pay by the management committee, he was also told that any back pay owing would be paid as soon as possible, and this was, in fact, done.
Mr. Fahey returned to his work as an internal ambulance driver on 2 November 1970, on the understanding that he would gradually work his way back to full capacity before returning to his normal duties. On 12 November he was referred to the staff health section for a medical examination. After examining Mr. Fahey and discussing his case with his general practitioner, the staff medical officer concluded that:
"Mr. Fahey is unable to do any lifting whatsoever because of the condition of his left shoulder. He would therefore only be fit for 'light' duties. He is unlikely to recover his lifting ability within the next year"—
Mr. Fahey would have reached the normal retiring age of 65 in a little over one year—
"and I therefore consider that he is 'permanently unable to carry out his duties'. I therefore recommend to the Hillingdon group hospital management committee that he be retired on medical grounds."
Following this report, Mr. Fahey was seen by the then assistant secretary to the hospital management committee, Mr. Knowles, on 26 November and given notice that he would be compulsorily retired on 31 December 1970 because of his physical incapacity to fulfil the duties required. He was told that this action was necessary following the medical report stating that he was permanently unable to carry out his duties as a driver. This was confirmed in writing to Mr. Fahey on the same day. He was also told that during the five weeks' period of notice he should continue to assist Mr. Graves—the head of the transport department—with occasional driving duties whenever there was no lifting or carrying involved.
The NHS superannuation scheme at that time provided for a short service gratuity for staff with between five and 10 years' service who
"Ceased to be employed by reason of permanent ill health or infirmity".
As Mr. Fahey was compulsorily retired on medical grounds, he received a short
1836
service gratuity equivalent to one year's wages which I understand was £1,078·99.
Mr. Fahey has complained that the proposal to transfer him to the post of swill and refuse labourer, and the medical examination by the staff medical officer were "engineered" to secure his "dismissal", and that his retirement on medical grounds constituted "victimisation". I can only say that, although I have personally reviewed the case in some detail, I have not been able to find any evidence to support such an assertion. When it became clear that Mr. Fahey would be unable to resume his normal duties, an effort was made to find an alternative job that he would be able to perform satisfactorily. Unfortunately, no such job could be found. The only appropriate post available was the one to which I have referred, which involved duties such as the collection of litter but did not involve any heavy lifting. Perhaps, not surprisingly, this offer was not acceptable to him.
Mr. Fahey has implied that, because he was still able to carry out certain driving jobs, a "light duty" post would have been found for him in the transport department. This is not the case. When Mr. Fahey returned to work in the transport department, it was on the understanding that he would initially undertake "light" duties and gradually take on the full range of duties. As he could only be given light duties he was considerably under-employed and this put an unreasonable pressure on the work-loads of his colleagues in the department. Such a situation could be tolerated only in the short term, for as long as there was a prospect of his recovering his full capacity to undertake his regular duties. Following the medical examination, when it was clear that Mr Fahey would not be able to undertake his full regular duties, he continued to be assigned to light duties during his period of notice.
It is very unfortunate for Mr. Fahey that the injury to his shoulder resulted in his being permanently unable to carry out his former duties. It does seem, though, that the hospital authorities made reasonable efforts to find him a suitable "light duty" post which did not involve any lifting before deciding that he should be retired on medical grounds. This matter was first investigated in 1971 by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon.

1837
Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), at the instigation of Dame Irene Ward, and has been re-examined a number of times since then. Following my own extensive re-examination of this case I can only reiterate the view of my predecessors, that unhappily I cannot see what action my Department could have usefully taken then, or could now take in this matter.
My hon. Friend raised a number of matters that I shall happily refer to the relevant hospital authorities because I think that they should be directed to them rather than my Department.
My right hon. Friend asked about the disablement benefit under the national insurance industrial injuries scheme. Following the industrial accident, Mr. Fahey made a claim for disablement benefit, and was examined by a medical board on 10 August 1970. The board accepted that he had a strained left shoulder as a result of the accident, and assessed the resulting disablement at 3 per cent. from 30 August 1970 to 29 February 1971. This was a final assessment, which meant that the board considered that the effects of the injury would pass by the end of the period of assessment. As a result of this assessment, Mr. Fahey received a small disablement gratuity and a special hardship allowance for the period between the expiry of his industrial injury benefit entitlement and his resumption of work.
In March 1971, Mr. Fahey applied for a review of his case on the ground of "unforeseen aggravation", arguing that his condition had worsened since the medical board's decision and that the worsening was due to the effects of the accident. However, a medical board which examined him on 27 May 1971 decided that there had been no unforeseen aggravation of the injury. When Mr.
1838
Fahey was notified of the medical board's decision, he was advised of his right to appeal to the medical appeal tribunal. When later interviewed, he stated that he did not wish to appeal to the tribunal. In 1972, Mr. Fahey made a further application for a review of his case, but the medical board on 20 November 1972 again decided that the conditions for review were not satisfied. On this occasion he did exercise his right of appeal to the medical appeal tribunal, but on 10 April 1973 the tribunal confirmed the board's decision.
Both the medical board and the medical appeal tribunal are independent bodies, specifically established by Parliament to decide questions arising on claims for disablement benefit. They do not come under my Department's jurisdiction, and it is not open to me to intervene or change in any way the decisions which they make. It would, however, be open to Mr. Fahey at any time to seek a further review of his case by a medical board. Should he wish to do so it would be advisable, in view of the medical appeal tribunal's previous findings, to furnish medical evidence in support of his application, although this would not, of course, be essential to such an approach.
I must tell my hon. Friend that I am very sorry that I cannot offer a more constructive response to Mr. Fahey's case, particularly as I understand that today is his twenty first wedding anniversary. But he can at least be assured that every possible avenue has been pursued in examining his case, leading ultimately to the initiative of my hon. Friend and to this debate in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUTTER SALES)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUTTER SALES)
  DETAINED PERSON (DEATHS)
  DETAINED PERSON (DEATHS)
  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (ACCOUNTABILITY)
  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (ACCOUNTABILITY)
DEFENCE
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
SCOTLAND
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Companies (Planning Agreements)
  Companies (Planning Agreements)
  Regional and Island Authorities (Expenditure)
  Regional and Island Authorities (Expenditure)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers (Housing)
  Prison Officers (Housing)
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Fire Service College Board
  Fire Service College Board
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
  Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
WALES
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Care (Training and Recruitment)
  Health Care (Training and Recruitment)
  Primary Care Provision
  Primary Care Provision
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  Hospitals (Premises)
  Hospitals (Premises)
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Poliomyelitis, Tuberculosis and Diphtheria
  Poliomyelitis, Tuberculosis and Diphtheria
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Maternity Grant Payment
  Maternity Grant Payment
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Traffic Accident Victims (Payments for Treatment)
  Traffic Accident Victims (Payments for Treatment)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Diabetes (Benefit)
  Diabetes (Benefit)
  House Furnishing (Assistance)
  House Furnishing (Assistance)
  Benefits (Prevention of Misuse)
  Benefits (Prevention of Misuse)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Manufacturing Industry (Educational Links)
  Manufacturing Industry (Educational Links)
INDUSTRY
  Timber
  Timber
  Deeside Titanium Ltd.
  Deeside Titanium Ltd.
  POLICE (COMPLAINTS)
  POLICE (COMPLAINTS)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Embassy, East Berlin (Union Jack)
  British Embassy, East Berlin (Union Jack)
  South-West Africa
  South-West Africa
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
  Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
  Middle East (Soviet Influence)
  Middle East (Soviet Influence)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Arms)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Arms)
  Irish Pensions Appeal Tribunal
  Irish Pensions Appeal Tribunal
ENERGY
  Electricity Costs
  Electricity Costs
  Oil Costs
  Oil Costs
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
TRANSPORT
  Central Line
  Central Line
  Bypass (Broughton, Northamptonshire)
  Bypass (Broughton, Northamptonshire)
  Transport Network (London)
  Transport Network (London)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
ENVIRONMENT
  British Sports Council (Olympic Games Policy)
  British Sports Council (Olympic Games Policy)
  Greater London Council (Property Disposal)
  Greater London Council (Property Disposal)
  Property Services Agency (Bloomsbury Auction)
  Property Services Agency (Bloomsbury Auction)
  Local Authority Recycling Services
  Local Authority Recycling Services
  Housing Insulation
  Housing Insulation
  Greater London Council (Property Transfers)
  Greater London Council (Property Transfers)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay and Cash Limits
  Pay and Cash Limits
  Stationery Office Contracts (Recycled Paper)
  Stationery Office Contracts (Recycled Paper)
TRADE
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Manufactured Goods (Germany)
  Manufactured Goods (Germany)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Outward Processing
  Outward Processing
  Photocopiers (Imports)
  Photocopiers (Imports)
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Engineering Workers (Earnings Comparisons)
  Engineering Workers (Earnings Comparisons)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Frontier and Non-Resident Workers (Tax Structure)
  Frontier and Non-Resident Workers (Tax Structure)
  Prices (International Comparisons)
  Prices (International Comparisons)
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Subcontractors (Certification)
  Subcontractors (Certification)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Royal Mint (Technology)
  Royal Mint (Technology)
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Economic Growth (Imports-Exports)
  Economic Growth (Imports-Exports)
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Further Education
  Further Education
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  School Building
  School Building
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Commercial Egg Production
  Commercial Egg Production
  Guaranteed Commodity Prices
  Guaranteed Commodity Prices
  Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture
  Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Agricultural Products (Price)
  Agricultural Products (Price)
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of
Derby.

VAT ON ORNAMENTAL SILVER
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider abolishing or reducing value added tax in the production of ornamental silver articles in order to preserve this world-famous British craft.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government are conscious that silversmiths and other craftsmen using precious metals face difficulties as a result of the unprecedented rise in the price of these materials. Silver articles which are exported are of course zero rated. So far as the home market is concerned, I do not think the fact that an article is expensive is a good reason for excluding it from tax.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that as the price of silver since Christmas has increased by 400 per cent., this, when added to VAT, is destroying the home trade, a trade which I think my noble friend will agree has been second to none in the world? Is he aware that craftsmen are seriously considering leaving the trade? Does he appreciate that if that were to happen we should never regain our prime position in this industry?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, since my noble friend tabled this Question there has been a dramatic fall in the price of silver, which reached a peak of £21 an ounce just after Christmas but which
1322
yesterday closed at £11·70. We do indeed appreciate the very high tradition of craftsmanship in silver in this country, which has existed for many centuries, but as my noble friend will appreciate, VAT is a broadly-based tax falling on the full range of consumer expenditure, subject only to the exemption of items of importance in the expenditure of ordinary families, and I do not think that, however important silver is, it really falls into that category.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, much as we enjoy the Minister's flippancies on these occasions, is he aware that many of us feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has raised a matter of some importance? May I ask whether the Minister would look at this matter in the light of the fact that there arc still some crafts in this country which are unique in a world connection and are uniquely British? Is he aware that it would be a great pity if, through the rather arbitrary operation of a flat rate VAT, certain very precious, very valuable and quite unique crafts, which are equally arts, were gradually to be lost by this country?
Lord COCKFIELD: There was nothing flippant in the replies I gave, my Lords, and if the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, cares to cast his mind back he may recall that in the days of the Labour Government under the late Mr. Clement Attlee, silver articles were at one time charged at 125 per cent., that even in more recent times they were charged at 25 per cent., and that therefore the 15 per cent. VAT at which they are at present charged represents a very considerable reduction on those figures.
The point of great importance here is that the price of silver has been pushed to quite insupportable levels by speculative forces. The price is now falling back again to more reasonable levels. Without wishing to give noble Lords any advice on these matters, I should be surprised to find that it does not fall further, and it is in that direction, rather than in the direction of relief from VAT, that a solution to the problems of the silver trade will come. Nobody could appreciate more than I do the beauty and elegance of silver produced in this country, in

1323
which we have a tradition extending back many hundreds of years.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to look at what I think is the real problem here? It is not VAT. The real problem is that smaller craftsmen do not have any working capital. Would the Minister be kind enough to look into the possibility of some form of pool or bank of precious metals and, for that matter, rare woods which have gone up in price almost as much as silver? Without doubt the small craftsman is taken for a ride by the middleman when he buys very small quantities, all he can afford, of gold, silver or rare woods. I believe that if the Minister would look into it, that would be by far the most useful way to help those people.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I entirely appreciate what my noble friend says. There are grants which are made to silversmiths through the Crafts Council. The problem of working capital is one which affects large numbers of small businesses, and the Government's general policies arc designed to help small businesses in this regard.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the violent fluctuations in the price of gold, of which he complains, would not take place if we went back to the gold standard?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I was not in fact complaining about anything. I was merely drawing attention to what the facts were.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that his own answers, and the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, both suggest that the real cause of the difficulty is the operation of the market, rather than any form of Government interference?
Lord COCKFIELD: The operation of the market, my Lords, is a matter which lies outside the scope of this Question, which refers to VAT.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, bearing in mind how commodity prices move, as well as the international game
1324
of cornering commodities when there is a demand, can the noble Lord say whether there was a real effort to discuss with this expert group of jewellers in Birmingham and other places the possible influence of VAT? Was there discussion with the trade (let me put it that way) before either a Labour Government or a Conservative Government arrived at a decision to impose value added tax on these delicious and delightful artefacts?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, VAT is not in any way responsible for the violent fluctuations in the price of silver—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is elementary;we all know that—
Lord COCKFIELD: That is why I am assisting the noble Lord by pointing it out. I do not think that any discussions of the kind that he has in mind would have prevented the occurrence of the situation with which silversmiths are now faced.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, I am very puzzled by the series of answers that the noble Lord has given. Indeed, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, replies to questions, I am never quite sure whether he is giving us good news or bad news. Which is it on this occasion?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the news that I am giving the noble Lord is that the proposition that there should be special relief from VAT for silver articles is not one which is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

FARMS: SALE AND RE-SALE
11.15 a.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of their policy of selling Government-owned farms to tenants at two-thirds of their prevailing value they will include a proviso that in the interests of good husbandry the tenant

1325
should not sell his farm before a certain period has elapsed except in special circumstances.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. Such a restraint on ownership would be a major legal change which the Government do not consider appropriate to apply to sales whether of privately-owned or publicly-owned land.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that this is taxpayers' money, and that in those cases where the tenant has been installed by the Government he has received large grants and loans to provide himself with live and dead stock, presumably for the purpose of farming, not for making a quick profit?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the position of a tenant of publicly-owned land is exactly the same as that of a tenant of privately-owned land. He is in the market to purchase that land at the prevailing price. It so happens that the price of land for a Ministry tenant is higher than if it were sold on the open market as let land.

DIOXIN ESCAPE AT BOLSOVER, APRIL 1968
11.17 a.m.
Lord HALE: 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 is the nature of the disability, apparently of industrial origin, suffered by workers at the Coalite and Chemical Products Company, Bolsover, since the accident in 1968.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that, following an explosion at the Coalite and Chemical Products plant at Bolsover in April, 1968, which led to the accidental production and release of dioxin, 79 cases of the skin disease
1326
chloracne were reported, some of them severe.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Answer that he has now given contains no facts that were not given before the publication of a series of articles, or indeed before the debate which took place in this House? Is he now really trying to give an Answer which contains no reference to the suggestion that the Health and Safety Executive have not been able to obtain particulars of this extremely dangerous exothermic explosion in 1938, and of the industrial consequences, on the pretext that having ceased to make the product, the Coalite Company do not fall within the regultaions? is the noble Earl not also aware—or is it not true—that the theft of the medical documents containing the records of these diseases was reported to the police, who said that they had no idea that they were of special importance, and who made a note without carrying out an investigation?
Does the noble Earl not feel that on the whole he has been rather carelessly instructed by his advisers? Will he find out at once from the Health and Safety Executive whether they have been wilfully deceived over all this time, whether information has been wilfully withheld, against the background of a canvas of Dows Chemicals Ltd. versus humanity, on an issue which has been raised in every State in the world, which has been a matter of controversy and of publicity, and which apparently has escaped almost no one except the noble Earl?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, wholeheartedly repudiate the criticisms of myself and my advisers in that case. If the noble Lord wishes to debate this important and worrying subject, he has every facility in this House to do so, as he is well aware. My Answer simply replied factually to the point that he put to me. With regard to some of his supplementary points, following the explosion, which was in 1968, not in 1938, as the noble Lord inadvertently said, the plant was completely redesigned and was operated without incident. Nevertheless in 1967 the firm ceased production of the chemical that involved production of dioxin as its by-product.

1327
As to the matter of powers to force a company to disclose full results on any information connected with poisonous chemicals, or the operation of a company, I am advised that the Health and Safety Commission could serve a notice under Section 27 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, with the Secretary of State's permission, to require production of the relevant papers. I am also advised that the Employment Medical Advisory Service, which is a subsection of the Health and Safety Commission, could under powers contained in the Factories Act 1961 undertake its own medical examination of the workers at Coalite if this was appropriate. But I understand, too, that EMAS expect to obtain such information as they require in due course, and that it therefore should not be necessary to consider using these powers. If it is necessary to consider using them in the light of recent events—and at the moment I do not want to comment on matters which are sub judice and in the hands of the police—and if the information is not forthcoming, then of course we will use them.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, has the Minister observed the allegations in the Sunday Times last week, not only that there were the 79 cases of chloracne which he mentioned but also that 35 former workers at this plant suffered from heart attacks over a two-year period? Has he also noted the allegation that the report by Dr. Jenny Martin on her study of 41 who were contaminated as a result of this explosion was concealed by the company, and that a version of it was published which did not contain some of the information discovered by her? Further, has the noble Earl taken into consideration the representations by the trade union which represented these men, the ASTMS, that companies should be forced to disclose all relevant information: and, therefore, could the powers of Section 27 which the noble Earl has mentioned be used to compel Coalite to disclose the report of Dr. Jenny Martin to the trade union, so that they can advise their former members?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, if I may repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, powers are available to force
1328
disclosure where information is sought. My advice is that this information is forthcoming, and that therefore the powers may not need to be used. If the information is not forthcoming, then the powers can of course be used.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE CUTS
11.23 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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, in preparing for necessary reductions of previously proposed future public expenditure, the system for selecting particular items can be refined.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Government decide the necessary reductions on the basis of a comprehensive review of public expenditure. The forthcoming public expenditure White Paper, to be published on Budget Day, will reflect a careful judgment of priorities in selecting items for reduction.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, and applaud the Government's tackling, of this essential task. But is my noble friend aware of the strategem employed by some departments and public bodies of selecting for the axe items widely regarded as sacrosanct, in the hope that the subsequent outcry will save them? Will the Government issue guidelines to concentrate on reducing bureaucracy and eliminating waste, such as the overheating of public buildings? This would also have the beneficial effect of relieving the congestion in the correspondence columns of The Times newspaper.
Lord COCK FIELD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful comments. We are aware, of course, of the allegation to which he refers, which has been made in a number of quarters, but Ministers are well aware of the risks which may be alleged to exist here and I have the utmost confidence in my colleagues' ability to deal with matters of this kind. So far as the size of the bureaucracy is concerned, the number of

1329
posts in the Civil Service—this is the central Government service—has been reduced by 25,000 since the general election, and plans which would involve substantial further reductions were announced by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council in your Lordships' House on 6th December. In addition, Sir Derek Rayner has given Her Majesty's Government invaluable assistance in identifying areas of waste and inefficiency, and steps are being taken to deal with them.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that economies, and important economies, can be made by simplifying administrative procedures —for example, social benefits—and that that may be even more important an angle than cutting staff, which always causes some inconvenience?
Lord COCKFIELD: Yes, my Lords. The simplification of procedures and the promotion of efficiency is of the essence of the work which is being done by Sir Derek Rayner in collaboration with Ministers. There are undoubtedly important savings to be made in these areas.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the only way that the Conservative Government can think of economising by throwing men out of work? What are the Government going to do with these men? Are they going to be out of work all their lives?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords;that is not the right way to look at the problem. We have to look at reductions in public expenditure in the context of the Government's overall economic policy, which is designed to eliminate inflation, to reduce taxation, to improve incentives and thus to lead to a higher level of output and a higher level of employment. Had we followed the policies of the previous Government, which entailed higher expenditure and higher taxation, the future prospects for the British economy would he much worse than they are at present
Lord BRUCE of DON1NGTON: My Lords, before considering cuts in public expenditure which have a direct impact on the mass of the population of this country, will Her Majesty's Government give an
1330
undertaking that they will take effective steps to reduce the net deficit of the United Kingdom with the Community, with its £1,300 million deficit on the Community budget, which the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister described only a few months ago as "our money"? Before replying, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it was the Conservative party in Opposition which, up to the time they became the Government, actually denied the existence of the deficit?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that it was the party opposite which renegotiated the terms of entry and claimed that they had come to a satisfactory conclusion—a claim which, in common with so many of their other claims, has been completely falsified by events? Nobody can give place to my right honourable and noble friend the Prime Minister in drawing attention to this problem, and, as she has repeatedly said, we are determined to find a solution which is satisfactory to the United Kingdom.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that one of the arts of government is the ordering of priorities? Furthermore, would he not agree that cuts across the board, which have been suggested, can hardly be described as a subtle demonstration of that art?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is very important that reductions in public expenditure should be made by reference to individual programmes rather than by reference to cuts across the board. That is why it is important for the House to await the publication of the Public Expenditure White Paper before it is possible to pursue these matters in detail.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in referring to the Prime Minister as his "noble friend", is the Minister trying to convey to us the fact that she is no longer Prime Minister and has come to adorn this House?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am not aware of the fact that I did so;but, if I did, it was an inadvertent slip of the tongue. I used the phrase "my noble friend" in relation to the Lord President of the Council—which is entirely correct from both aspects of the phrase.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that it is part of the law of the Medes and Persians that a revival of the economy and an introduction of increased employment inevitably follow a policy of severe deflationary measures leading to high unemployment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the important thing, and what is essential from the point of view of the economy, is to reduce the level of inflation. That can only be done by a firm monetary and financial policy. Reduction of public expenditure to an amount within the capacity of the country to pay is an integral part of such a policy.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, has not the effect of the Government system of priorities been to achieve the greatest unhappiness of the greatest number?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords, that is quite untrue. If one casts one's mind back to the events before the General Election, the fruits of the kind of policy followed by the party opposite are abundantly and painfully clear.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we have had quite a lot of supplementary questions on this and, although I know my noble friend would be delighted to carry on answering them, in view of the fact that we have other business, I wonder whether it may be considered appropriate to move on.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INVALID DIRECTIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a;and to be printed.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
11.32 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 28 [Day Nurseries]:
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 26, line 15, leave out from ("may") to end of line 21 and insert ("appoint to the staff of a nursery school, or a primary school having one or more nursery classes, additional teachers who, in accordance with arrangements made by them in that behalf, shall be made available to any day nursery.").
The noble Baroness said: As we start on Clause 28, I should like to say that we on these Benches are very pleased to see this clause and we welcome it. It shows that both parties co-operate as this clause is identical to that in the Labour Bill which fell. In moving Amendment No. 282, I may say that we feel that unless the primary school from which the staff are taken has some additional staff, that school is going to be inadequately staffed and the children will suffer. The Notes on Clauses, on page 57, say:
"Where a school provides teachers under the clause there may well be a need to appoint additional teachers for the school. It would not be right if arrangements under the clause resulted in a reduction of the staff/pupil ratio in a nursery school or class".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said yesterday, when not supporting our amendment about nursery schools and the duty to provide them, day nurseries, play groups and so on would become even more important. I think that as children will be in the day nurseries until they are five, very probably they will need some education from trained nursery staff and not have to rely entirely on the care staff who are normally in day nurseries. I hope that this very uncontroversial amendment will have the support of the Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, when I first saw this amendment I was slightly puzzled that the noble Baroness should have put it down because, as she said, Clause 28 is a copy of the clause in her Government's Bill of 1978. Therefore, it seemed to me that it would be unexceptionable. But I now recognise there is a further point that she is trying to make

1333
about the employment of teachers in day nurseries.
The clause as drafted does not in any way prevent additional staff from being appointed to nursery schools and classes with a view to their working in day nurseries. This is permissible under the clause. It also enables existing staff (that is, nursery teachers already employed), provided that they are agreeable to the arrangement, to be deployed so as to share their time between the nursery school or class and the day nursery—something with which I think we are all in agreement. We all wish to see greater flexibility in the use of resources for the under-fives. If the noble Baroness's amendment were to be carried, the very flexibility that we should like to see would be impeded; because the amendment would require that the additional teachers taken on for the purpose shall—and I repeat, "shall "—be made available to any day nursery. We believe that teachers may willingly work for part of their time in a day nursery, and for the rest of the time in a school or nursery class;and there is a professional justification for such an arrangement.
It is important for nursery teachers to have a firm educational base to enable them to exchange ideas with other nursery teachers and to keep in touch with the latest developments in nursery education. I believe this to be a view that would be shared by teachers and that they would prefer this to a longer-term appointment in a day nursery. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Baroness will not press this amendment. I think it is restricting the rather more flexible arrangements that we should like to see rather than making it easier for there to be this interchange.
Baroness DAVID: While I cannot accept that if these teachers were appointed, any particular one would always be going to a day nursery—for I imagine that there would be flexible arrangements—in the light of what the Minister has said, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [School and further education regulations]:
11.39 a.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 27, line 28, leave out ("educational").
The noble Lord said: Clause 29 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations on a number of matters. In particular, in subsection (1)(d), he can make regulations about the
"keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about pupils".
It is understandable that he should be given that power and one can see that it is desirable in certain circumstances to disclose or transfer records, and to pass on as a child moves from one school to another the records of its academic attainments so far. It is also desirable to keep a check on the possible disclosure of such records. Why is this restricted to educational records? "Educational "could be interpreted, perhaps too narrowly, as referring simply to academic prowess. In that case, that would mean that there would be no rules made by the Secretary of State about the disclosure or transfer of records concerning the behaviour or the health of a child. If, on the other hand, "educational "means any record kept in a school, in that case that word is not necessary in the clause. If you put it in the clause, it implies that there are some kinds of records kept by a school about which the Secretary of State could not make any regulations. What records would they be? There is no need for the word "educational "in this clause at all. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is referring just to education? There are records with regard to family histories—for instance, in the pastoral care sections of the school—which might be very hurtful if they were disclosed to a great number of people. I should like to know whether he is referring to those records as well.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The noble Baroness has put her finger on the point that I am seeking to make. Are records of that kind educational within the meaning of the word "educational "here? That is what we want to know.

1335
If it is held that they are not educational, then the Secretary of State cannot make any rules about whether they should be disclosed, or whatever. If "educational "covers them, at any rate that is clear. If the word "educational "is taken out of this clause, then, as I understand it, the Secretary of State could make regulations about any records kept in a school including records of the kind that the noble Baroness has in mind. Therefore she is joining with me in asking for clarification and, if necessary, the removal of the word "educational "from this clause.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): Clause 29(1)(d) is intentionally restricted to educational records;a corresponding restriction appears in an existing regulation—Regulation 8 of the School Regulations 1959—which relates to educational information about pupils and not to broader matters. It is generally agreed that some record of a pupil's educational progress is necessary, and the Government believe that there should be a large degree of openness between schools and parents. Indeed, the educational records kept on school-children will usually consist almost entirely of the information that is made available to parents in term reports and at parents' evenings and the like. A small number of cases may arise, however, where notes may be kept relating to noneducational matters which should only be dealt with on a confidential basis: these might refer, for example, to suspicions that the child is being neglected or ill-treated at home or is otherwise at risk in some way;and, in such cases, the need for confidentiality is primarily in the interest of the pupil. There is also the question of respecting the confidentiality of professional, medical, psychological or social work reports many of which will not in any case be the property of the local education authority.
I trust that in the light of these considerations the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment, which would otherwise constitute a major extension of ministerial power, for which I do not think there is any justification in this matter.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I should like to get this clear. That means
1336
that with regard to records about a pupil, which might be of a highly confidential character, the Secretary of State has no power to make regulations ensuring that confidentiality is observed. That seems to follow. I am rather disquieted about that.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I find myself, for once, agreeing with the Government on this amendment. I think that the word "educational "is necessary. If you do not have it, non-educational comments are usually dangerous.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: With great respect, I think that my noble riend is agreeing with me. I am very much concerned—and that is why I raised the amendment—that these noneducational records, to which my noble friend referred, should not be bandied about. 1 want the safeguard that this clause would imply: that the Secretary of State can make regulations as to whether or not they should be disclosed. The regulations cover the keeping, disclosure and transfer of the records. If my amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State would be able to lay it down that confidentiality must be observed about these records. If the word educational "stays in, apparently he could not give any ruling or instruction. If a local authority chose to be careless about it, there is nothing the Secretary of State could do. I am more disquieted the more this argument proceeds.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment. The position which this clause sets out is the position which has obtained for a very long while. Are local education authorities and schools not to he trusted in any way at all regarding these matters? Are we to give the Secretary of State a power which has never been possessed by a Secretary of State to interfere in this way? I hope not. The arrangements that have obtained have worked extraordinarily well and therefore I see no reason to extend the power of the Secretary of State in this matter.
Viscount SIMON: Can the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, before he replies, explain further what he said about non-educational records not being the property of the local education authority? The records are

1337
there;I am not clear what is implied by the statement that they do not belong to the authority. If that means that they have no right to disclose them, then that is the answer that we are looking for.
Lord HYLTON: I venture to suggest that the historical position may not be entirely satisfactory. If the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, feels like pressing his amendment, I personally will support him, as I hope some of my noble friends will. What my noble friend Lord Bellwin is saying confirms the substance of the point behind the amendment.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I, as one who has used these records practically all my working life, say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potter-hill. It is good practice on the part of doctors and social workers to treat various documents with confidentiality. It does not really need legislating for because it is the good practice of doctors, social workers, pastoral workers and teachers to regard confidentiality without making particular rules and regulations about it which in some peculiar cases might tie them down.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If you do what is done here, which is to single out educational records and give the Secretary of State special rights to deal with them, the indication inevitably is that he does not have those rights in relation to anything else. I seldom dare to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who has been in this business for a great many years and knows more than most people about it, but I think that he is wrong here. The fact that some loophole has not been abused is not a reason for not closing it. I think that the noble Lord ought to consider this again to see whether there is not a real point here.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: We are in the odd position that apparently the local authorities are to be trusted completely regarding the confidentiality of non-educational records, which may well be of a highly confidential character, but apparently are not to be trusted with such information as what marks the child received at the last school examinations. It seems very odd that the Secretary of State should have power to direct them
1338
about confidentiality of educational records in the narrow sense of education, but no power to direct about disclosure or transfer of much more confidential information.
If we accepted the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and trust the local authorities, then I would not have thought that paragraph (d) was necessary at all. I still regard as odd—and nothing that has been said makes me change my mind about this—that the Secretary of State should have this power where it is least necessary for purely academic records and not have it where it might be more necessary. I trust that the noble Lord will look at this question again before the Report stage.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: Surely there is a very good reason for singling out educational records, that it is in the interests of parents to ensure that they are fully advised relating to the progress of their child in a particular school. If that is not done, the parents will have a real grouse. It is perfectly reasonable to say that this must be done.
Lord BELLWIN: I am grateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Yet, at the same time, there clearly is some uncertainty here. It might be wise on this occasion to consider the matter between now and Report. That we undertake to do.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
11.50 a.m.
Baroness DAVID: May I ask a question of the Minister before we finish with this clause? Subsections (4) and (6) give very sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and regulations are mentioned in both cases. I should like to know where the regional advisory councils come in—this is particularly to do with subsection (6)—and how much consultation there will be before these regulations are made.
Lord BELLWIN: In contrast to some other clauses in this Bill, it is clear, even

1339
from the nature of the short discussion we have just had on this clause, that noble Lords are in general agreement with its purpose, namely, to provide the Secretary of State with powers to make important regulations covering schools of further education in the light of the Government's proposal to repeal the existing very general power in the Local Government Act 1974.
Moreover, the opportunity has been taken, as the noble Baroness the Minister of State explained during Second Reading, to specify in the enabling powers now proposed what the regulations should cover. Care has also been taken to make the clause sufficiently flexible to permit the making of regulations on the keeping and disclosure, as well as the transfer, of educational records, should this be thought desirable in due course. I think I can say we have had a useful short discussion on this point, prompted by amendments put down by noble Lords opposite.
Lord HYLTON: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that the sensitive question of records will be given further thought. There are two further points to be borne in mind in this reconsideration: the first is the right of the parents to information—the reasonable right—and the second is the legitimate interest of the child. These two things in certain circumstances may be seen perhaps to be clashing, but such circumstances would be very rare.
The Earl of SWINTON: If the Government are going to reconsider this matter, there is one further point that I should be grateful if they would look at, and that concerns what I would call the rather transient population of some school children. In my own area there is a large military camp at Catterick Garrison and we sometimes find that before we get their records, both on education and on health, children arrive and then leave because their parents have been stationed elsewhere. There is sometimes a borderline between the two where you have a child who may be slightly deaf or have visual difficulties. There is little one can do about that if the records listing those difficulties arrive after the child has gone elsewhere. I do not know whether it is interdepartmental, with the educational authorities themselves, with the Army, with the liaison or even
1340
with the National Health Service, but it does happen, and if the Government are looking at certain aspects, perhaps they would look at that as well.
Lord BELLWIN: As we are to have a look, then of course we will certainly take cognisance of the point made by my noble friend.
Baroness DAVID: I was not referring to subsection (1) but to subsections (4) and (6) and I was asking, as regards the rather sweeping powers which seem to have been given to the Secretary of State, what was the position of the regional advisory councils.
Baroness YOUNG: This is a very good example of where there has been a general power before and now that that general power will be repealed by the Local Government and Planning Bill now in another place, the Government arc seeking to put back the powers in a rather narrower form. This raises a lot of issues, including the one that we have just discussed and the one raised by the noble Baroness. The answer is that there will be consultation on all these matters with the relevant bodies before the regulations are laid. I do not think there is any cause for the Committee to be suspicious in any way. The powers have existed before, for a very long time, as I understand it, and because they are being repealed by another Act they are coming back in this Bill in a more restrictive form. In a sense this has given your Lordships the opportunity to raise detailed points which have probably passed unnoticed in the past under a more general power.
As my noble friend Lord Bellwin has said, of course we will consider all these points if there is something further which needs elucidation. It is very valuable to have had the discussion, but I should not like the Committee to feel that there is something sinister about this. On the contrary, I think it is probably clearer than it has ever been before.
Baroness DAVID: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Provision of education at non-maintained schools]:
11.55 a.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 29, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the powers which local authorities have to send children to fee-paying schools, and the Secretary of State has a sort of supervisory power over this which would disappear as a result of this subsection. One can easily think of good reasons why a local authority may decide to do this. A child may be in need of special education which cannot be provided for in any other way, or the child's parents may be abroad or unable to look after it and it may be desirable, for that or other reasons, to provide the child with boarding education that cannot be given within the State system.
It is quite proper that local authorities should have these powers, but the use of them can often mean that much more is spent on the education of one child than on the average education of children for whom that local authority is responsible. I think this is a serious matter that ought to be kept under review, and the Secretary of State ought to know how local authoities use this power and the extent to which the use of it varies from one local authority to another, and to ensure that it is used for its proper purpose and that it does not amount—as it could in some cases—to a kind of educational favouritism. I should think it would have been wiser, therefore, to keep the law as it is and not to make the alteration proposed in this subsection.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment seeks to leave on the Statute Book the power first provided by the 1976 Act for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that LEAs exercise their powers under Section 81(b) of the 1944 Act only in accordance with arrangements approved for the time being by the Secretary of State. Section 81 of the 1944 Act required the Secretary of State to make regulations empowering LEAs to provide assistance of various kinds to enable pupils to take advantage of any educational facilities available to them without hardship to themselves or their parents. These
1342
kinds of assistance were: to defray such expenses of children attending county schools, voluntary schools or special schools, as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities;to pay the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable;to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers.
At the same time, Section 100(1)(c) of the 1944 Act required the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the payment by himself:
"for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them, of the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable".
This was the provision under which the Direct Grant Regulations were made. Thus the 1944 Act provided quite explicitly both for provision enabling pupils to attend independent schools to be made in a number of potentially overlapping ways and also for that provision to be made regardless of the availability of maintained school places.
Section 81 of the Act contained no provision requiring an LEA to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for their arrangements made under that section. That was imported for the first time by the Labour Government in their Act of 1976. And it was imported purely for party political reasons;there was absolutely no other justification for this imposition of a requirement not thought necessary or appropriate in 1944 or at any time since. It has had a brief and unhappy stay on the statute books and Clause 30(3) will remove it, restoring the position to what it was prior to 1976. I am sure that my noble friends will be as anxious as I am to reject this amendment and so restore to LEAs full statutory protection for their discretionary power to assist with the provision of education at non-maintained schools.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The noble Lord does not seem to have any sense of answering an argument. He just reads us a set piece each time. I am reminded of the story of an American

1343
politician who went round making speeches in the company of his aide-de-camp. On one occasion the speech did not go down very well and he said to his aide-de-camp:" What do you think was wrong there? "The aide-de-camp said: "Three things. First, you read your speech;second, you don't read too good;and third, what you got wasn't fittin' to read". I am sometimes reminded of that story when I hear the noble Lord. I gather that his argument against this is that the Secretary of State's powers were introduced for a purely party political reason and apparently, for an equally party political reason, he proposed to take them out again. I am not very much encouraged by his answer.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Perhaps I might make one comment, as I was in some sense, in this House, responsible for the 1976 Act. There is not the same necessity for this power for the Secretary of State under a Tory Government as under a Labour Government. When we had certain councils which were deliberately trying to twist conditions in order to reduce the comprehensive and increase the fee-paying side, there was a very strong case for it.
Lord BELLWIN: As regards the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in another place at another incarnation I might have put it a different way, but here I will not do so. I need not make any comment on it. It does not merit any comment. The fact is that the 1976 Act was a nasty little piece of legislation which, when brought to light, highlighted, as we are doing today, only shows that it is very necessary that we do something to get rid of it. That is precisely what we are doing.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Provision of clothing for physical training etc.]:
12.3 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 29, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: With one eye on the clock and having regard to your Lordships' state of health at the end of a rather arduous week, I think that it may meet the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 285 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 286. Section 31, subsection (1), deals with the question of PT clothing for school children. Up until now it has been the Minister, as I understand it, who has made regulations specifying the clothing to be supplied and now, perfectly sensibly, that is going over to the local authorities so that they can make their own list, as it were, of the PT equipment which can be supplied.
Subsection (2) deals with the question of provision in further education for young people over 18 who are now called adults. That subsection says that no longer shall the parents be liable to make payment, but the young person concerned. Perhaps I may speak to that for one brief moment. All of us are very keen that young people of the age of 18 should be encouraged as much as possible to work off their energies in PT rather than in other directions, which some of us note with some sorrow, especially in the courts. In those circumstances—and I bear in mind that under the present regulations this PT kit is loaned;that this provision gives the power for it to be acquired, with the young person concerned made to pay for it—I am wondering whether this is a very sensible provision.
All of us can imagine the situation where the young person of 18 is still not earning, and therefore to make him a liable person may indeed put the local education authority in a difficulty. I can well understand the alternative being given to the local education authority in its discretion, and having found out the question of means, to make either the young adult, if I may so call him, or the parents responsible for the cost, but I cannot see the purpose for the first time of making parents not responsible and the young adult certainly responsible, whatever the situation may be in regard to his employment or otherwise.
As I have said, while moving Amendment No. 285 I am going to talk about Amendment No. 286. All of us are obviously concerned about the position of

1345
school uniforms and the cost that may arise in regard to parents having to purchase them. Many of us feel that it is a good thing to have school uniforms. This is a matter which is debated among those who are concerned with education, but we need not go into that debate today. We are merely dealing with the question of the provision of them and the financial implications.
If local education authorities are to deal with this matter, your Lordships may think it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should keep some watch on the way things are developing;namely, whether in a local education authority, in some cases, the provision of the clothing is so expensive that one ought to consider the situation, and, secondly, to see whether the poorest are being properly cared for in regard to the supply of this clothing and the provision of finance.
That is why it is suggested that a very harmless but I think useful new clause should be inserted after the clause dealing with the provision of clothing;namely, it shall be the duty of every local education authority to make a report, including specifically the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) which deal, as I have just said, with the highest cost of the clothing and with what is being done in regard to the poorest families or those which have the most responsibility because of the number of children they have. It is in that sense that I beg to move my amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: Referring first of all to Amendment 285, there is not a great deal to say on this. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, a modest measure in line with the Government's general philosophy of giving local education authorities greater discretion to run their own affairs and to remove or relax unnecessary controls by central Government. It will enable an authority to take its own decisions about what PE clothing to provide for pupils at schools maintained by it and the conditions under which the clothing will be provided. One could talk at greater length on it, and, if pressed, no doubt, I will, but I fear this is one of those narrow areas where there is not a lot either way. We are so anxious, as we have tried to stress all through so many of the clauses in this Bill, to give the local education authorities that much greater
1346
discretion to do things. If it should prove to be, in the course of time, that these things are not done for whatever reason in a proper way, one would always look not just at this but at anything else of the kind.
On the points made with regard to Amendment No. 286, I sympathise very much with the basic argument which the noble Lord made. Who would not do that? But what we are suggesting here yet again is taking steps to take Government out of being involved in, one might say, pettifogging requirements which, as in this case, are very much out of date and in fact no longer in practical use. To add some new requirement upon them would be again contrary to the same basic point I made earlier;namely, the wish to give them opportunity to be more than local education authorities. In any case, what would we do with this information if we had it? That in itself is very questionable.
Under Clause 8 the Secretary of State is taking power to make regulations requiring authorities to publish information about schools and about their policy and arrangements in respect of any regulated matter, and therefore the Secretary of State will already have power to ensure that this information is available to parents I think that that is the thrust of the amendment—the requirement for this information to be made available. I do not think I am misunderstanding or misreading it. If I am, I am quite sure the noble Lord will tell me so.
Lord MISHCON: I think it is absolutely excusable that on Friday of this week noble Lords' speeches are made and are not necessarily understood. Therefore, I make no complaint whatsoever when I remind the Minister that the first point I made is one that he has not dealt with at all. That is the question of charging adults over the age of 18 for the supply of this uniform instead of, as is the present position, charging the parents. I understand perfectly—I think we are all a litle tired—that the Minister may not have understood that that was the reason I gave for my amendment.
In regard to the second matter, he certainly dealt with the point which I made;but I wonder whether he would not agree that it is absolutely essential,

1347
from a general information point of view, that a Secretary of State, who I am sure has a heart in regard to what is happening when the price of uniforms is going up and all clothing is going up to amounts which some parents find absolutely exorbitant, should at least have collated reports. I am not asking for needless statistics but reports which show what are the most expensive uniforms in our maintained schools, what are, in fact, the provisions that are being made in regard to a category—not all categories—which has been specially selected as possibly covering the poorest families and those with the most numbers in them. One would have thought that that was something which the Secretary of State himself would want to have so that he could keep a watch on these matters and, if necessary, make appropriate regulations if he thought fit.
Lord BELLWIN: I will try to answer in a little more detail the points which the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, makes. The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 31 is explained in the booklet, Notes on Clauses, on page 65. To summarise: subsection 5(3) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 empowers a Secretary of State to make regulations authorising a local education authority to provide clothing for physical training as specified in the regulations for school pupils and further education students. The current regulations—The Provision of Clothing Regulation 1948—authorise the provision of sports footwear, shorts, jerseys and the like, but the regulations only allow these items to be provided on loan.
The effect of Clause 31(1) is that authorities will be empowered to provide such items of PE clothing as they think fit without being authorised so to do by regulations, and in future authorities may wish to provide clothing otherwise than on loan and in circumstances in which payment would be appropriate. The payment provisions of Section 5 of the 1948 Act relate only to payment by parents, notwithstanding that clothing may be provided for grown-up students. This has always been anomalous but it has been a theoretical anomaly since PE clothing has, as I have said, only been provided on loan and free of charge.
1348
Since the position may well change and some items of PE clothing may be provided on terms under which they become the property of the recipient, with a charge being made for them, this present theoretical anomaly could become a real one. Clause 31(2) removes the anomaly by providing that where clothing is made available for an adult any payment shall be made by him rather than by his parents. Of course, the powers extend not just to school children but to any adult education class. For example, parents could hardly be liable for the debts of 40-year-olds or more. The proposed amendment to omit Clause 31(2) would perpetuate the anomaly, as I say, and it is for this reason that we seek to reject it.
Lord MISHCON: I dare not try your Lordships' patience too much. I can only say that we are talking about an Education Bill. I, in the course of my not too successful education, learned the art of precis and I hope I said in three sentences precisely what the Minister said this clause means and what the present practice is. My question still remains unanswered, but I do not want to test your Lordships' patience any more.
Lord BELLWIN: I will make just one further comment; namely, that the regulations made under the Act empower the local education authority to recover only such payment as the authority thinks the parent could pay without financial hardship, and I would have thought that really was sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Recoupment between education authorities]:
12.17 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 30, line 4, after ("secondary") insert ("or further").
The noble Lord said: Here we are dealing with an important provision

1349
relating to recoupment between education authorities. I am taking it for granted again at this hour that all your Lordships know of the situation which exists in regard to recoupment;namely, the supplying authority in regard to education is able to recoup from the authority where the student may reside. Again with your Lordships' permission, while moving Amendment No. 287 I am going to speak to Amendment No. 289 and also to a further amendment which I believe I am right in saying is Amendment No. 295.
The first amendment seeks in subsection 1(1) to include further education with primary or secondary education in regard to the recoupment provision, and if that amendment is acceptable to your Lordships that will mean that subsection (3) is unnecessary because the only difference between subsection (3) and subsection (1) in regard to financial provision is that in subsection (1), dealing with primary or secondary education, there is an automatic right of recoupment, whereas in subsection (3), on further education, it is only recoupment where the other authority has consented to the making of the provision of the further education so far as the supplying authority, if I may so term it, is concerned. What we are saying, in endeavouring to persuade your Lordships to accept this amendment, is that in regard to primary and secondary and further education, where the other authority where the student is resident has consented to the provision by the supplying authority, then the supplying authority can automatically recoup. We are paying them on precisely the same basis—primary, secondary and further education.
I hope that I can deal just as briefly with one other situation, which is a little complicated. In the London area—again, I should like to use shorthand English to cover the Greater London area, together with certain contiguous areas—the present situation is one which I believe is called the "free trade "situation. That means that, without any other formalities at all, a student can go along to any of the institutions in the area and get his education quite automatically, without the necessity for any recoupment provision at all. That is extremely useful, as your Lordships can well imagine. It means that, quite apart from being able to select
1350
a specialist institution which the student may find very advantageous, so often he goes to it immediately after work and chooses the educational institution near his place of work, rather than having to go back to his own residence and choosing one in that locality. That is a situation which works very well.
There is a difficulty about the interpretation of subsection (8), which deals with that position—and, as I said, I am trying for the sake of your Lordships to take all these points in one speech. It is not just a question of my having doubts as to whether or not that position in regard to free trade still remains if subsection (8) stays part of this Bill. It is a doubt which was expressed in Standing Committee D on this Bill. When this point was raised, Dr. Boyson said as follows, at columns 2140 and 2141 of the Standing Committee Official Report—and I ask for your Lordships' leave to quote him—
"All I can say is that I am advised all round that the Bill makes no change at all, nor is it intended to make any change to the question of recoupment in London. I think that it has been misunderstood by certain people. Bills are complicated, as we saw in the debate which we had earlier tonight. People are often suspicious of the intentions of various clauses, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. I claim innocence. That is where the light of judgment falls. The Government are as white as driven snow. The Bill does not intend any change, nor will it bring any change. Because of the complications of interpreting, I can quite understand that people have misunderstood it. The association that wrote to the honourable Member was not the only one that misunderstood it. We have been in contact with chief education officers about it".
Then Mr. Graham said:
"I can understand the Minister saying that it is not intended to make any change. I was going to say 'if it turns out', but the Minister then said 'and it will not bring any change'. I understand also that the Minister was so advised. Against the background that, in effect, it is merely a tidying-up or rationalising subsection relating to those Acts, am Ito take it from the Minister that the fears of my authority are unfounded?"—
to which Dr. Boyson replied:
"The answer is, Yes, as I understand it. I cannot claim eternal truth, but, as I am informed, 'Yes'."—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/80.]
What with claiming the colour of white and various angelic qualifications, and making the spiritual claim to eternal truth, I do not regard Dr. Boyson's reply as being very clear or certain. So that the uncertainty remains today, especially as I observe that in the publication Education dated 7th March this clause

1351
is referred to in an article under the heading "Adult". This is the paragraph which I should like, with leave, to read to your Lordships, which shows how difficult this is and the misunderstanding that is arising all over the place about the situation in London, and the interpretation to be placed on subsection (8).
"At issue is Clause 30(2)"—
it was then Clause 30(2)—
"in the Government's Education No. 2 Bill, now at committee stage in the House of Lords, which allows local authorities providing an adult education course to claim recoupment costs from the home Authority of an out-county student. But if the home Authority does not consent to pay the cost, the recoupment is to be determined by the Secretary of State.
"This clause appeared to override the principle of free trade ' within Greater London laid down in the 1963 Local Government Act. The London Association for Continuing Education had protested that the clause would allow Authorities to refuse recoupment and could lead to adult education fees doubling or trebling as protective tariffs were set up in the 20 Outer London boroughs.
"At last week's meeting, Mr. Peter Batten, principal of Sutton College of Liberal Arts, said that he had received a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Neil Macfarlane, claiming that the Bill would not alter existing arrangements for recoupment. Although LEAs could opt out of paying recoupment (Sutton and Bexley already have refused to reimburse the ILEA), the providing Authority could ask for a direction from the Secretary of State in order to secure payment.
"But what Mr. Macfarlane had not said was that Authorities would have to ask for a direction on every single individual case—involving a nightmare of bureaucratic red tape. And even then there was no guarantee of DES support—quite the reverse, in fact. Mr. Peter Clyne, assistant education officer (community education) with the ILEA, said that Inner London had already submitted several individual cases to the Secretary of State even before the Bill was passed, and in each case the DES had supported the home Authority and not the Authority demanding recoupment. So much then for the Government's enthusiasm for free trade".
All I really seek from the Minister is a categorical affirmation and a clear assurance in regard to subsection (8), that the situation in the London area remains as it is;namely, that there is free trade in further education in exactly the same way as now exists. As I said, I have spoken to all three amendments, but I shall be moving them separately. I now move the amendment which is in my name. I beg to move.
Baroness DAVID: May I just add one point before the Minister replies, because
1352
there is an anomaly. As I understand it, as the Bill stands, 16, 17 and 18-year olds have an absolute right to go over the border for secondary education in another authority. Presumably, at sixth-form stage they can go to a school. But 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who want to go across the border to a further education establishment do not have that right, and it seems to me that that is very unfair.
Viscount SIMON: I just want to say at this stage that the object of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is the same as the object of some amendments which are down in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear, which we shall be moving later. It is a little difficult to see how these two sets of amendments will work together and we do not want to cause trouble to the Committee. So far as I can see, the only substantial difference between the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and of my noble friends is that he wants further education, as well as primary and secondary education, to have a right to cross borders, but in each case provided that the originating authority agrees, while we want to have border crossing whether the originating authority agrees or not.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: We are dealing with two situations which I shall attempt to explain. The first relates to Amendment No. 287, which seeks to apply the recoupment proposals to further education. The second relates to the situaton in London. To deal first with the amendment, Clause 33 applies automatic recoupment for students at primary and secondary schools. It is part and parcel of our arrangements under Clause 6 for allowing parental preferences. Therefore, if parental preference is for a child to attend a school in another authority and all the conditions have been agreed and accepted, there is automatic recoupment, instead of the rather complicated difficulties that one can encounter if this is not automatically the case. Clause 33 is essentially to be taken with Clause 6. It will extend parental preference.
However, the Bill does not deal with higher and further education. Clauses 6 to 8 apply to primary and secondary education. The answer to the first question put by the noble Lord, Lord

1353
Mishcon, is that the recoupment proposals do not apply to further education because further education is not being considered within the context of the Bill. That is why it has been left out. Therefore the Government cannot accept the amendment, because it would widen and extend the Bill's purpose and would put something into Clause 33 to which there was no earlier reference.
I now turn to the London government question, which I shall attempt to explain. As I understand it, the situation in Greater London, where there is cross-border traffic and recoupment, is governed by what are called the "free trade" provisions of Section 31(8) of the London Government Act 1963. Under that provision no local education authority in the Greater London area can refuse to take a student from another such authority or from one contiguous with Greater London on grounds of residence, irrespective of whether the home authority consents or not. This is the "free trade" position and it means automatic admission for those who are applying. On the other hand, the receiving authority cannot insist on recoupment. For this the student must obtain the Secretary of State's formal ruling to that effect in each case—a most laborious process, with literally hundreds of individual cases referred in the last year or so.
There has been a great deal of pressure from contiguous authorities for a stop to be put on this drain on their students, and also from ILEA for some measure to oblige the contiguous authorities to repay without recourse to the time-consuming process which I have outlined. Any move, however, to introduce compulsory recoupment in the rest of the country would encourage London to step up this pressure but, on the other hand, it would be bitterly opposed by the authorities sending pupils into central London.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is that the Bill makes no alteration at all to the position as it is. The subsection does not in any way amend the law, as is made clear in the Notes on Clauses on Page 70. It is merely consequential on the transfer in this Bill of provisions from other legislation. The London Government Act makes no provisions relating to recoupment, only to admission. This Bill introduces automatic recoupment for schools but not for further education. The London position remains exactly as it is.
I have had discussions about this matter, and the trouble is that there has been no agreement between the different authorities as to the right thing to do. It is clearly desirable for there to be free admission into London for students. On the other hand, it is difficult for London not to have automatic recoupment. That, of course, puts a great responsibility on the authorities sending the students. I feel that the Government cannot move on this area until there is a much greater measure of agreement than we now have. I have not had an opportunity to read the article in Education, but I understand that it is misconceived and that the position is as I have indicated it.
Lord MISHCON: I am much obliged for that explanation on subsection (8), which relates also to Amendment No. 295. When we reach that amendment I shall take appropriate action. However, in regard to Amendment No. 287 I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to divide.
12.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 287) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Grey, E.

Amulree, L.

David, B.

Hale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hall, V.

Balogh, L.

Derby, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Barrington, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Henderson, L.

Blease, L.

Foot, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Kaldor, L.

Bowden, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gosford, E.

Leatherland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rochester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Simon, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stamp, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gowrie, E.

Monson, L.

Adeane, L.

Gray, L.

Morris, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Greenway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Haig, E.

Ampthill, L.

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

Newall, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Hampden, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Burton, L.

Hatherton, L.

Onslow, E.

Cathcart, E.

Headfort, M.

Porritt, L.

Chesham, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Renton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Just, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

D'Arcy de Knayth, B.

Ironside, L.

Selkirk, E.

Davidson, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Sempill, Ly.

De Freyne, L.

Kimberley, E.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Elton, L.

Lothian, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Loudoun, C.

Vickers, B.

Exeter, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Westbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wolverton, L.

Galloway, E.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 288 not moved.]
12.44 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 30, line 6, after first ("authority") insert ("and that other local education authority has consented to the making of that provision.").
The noble Lord said: Before asking for the leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment, may I seek some clarification from the Minister? I did not quite understand her reference to the fact that further education is not being dealt with in the Bill, because Clause 33(3), with which we have been dealing in these amendments, begins:
"Where any provision for further education is made…".
1356
May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to have a separate Bill in regard to further education if, as the Minister says, further education is not covered by this Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: The position is that the Government do not have in mind another Bill on further education. The misunderstanding arises because Clause 33(3) is taking account of the new provisions for the sharing or pooling of expenditure by local education authorities on advanced further education. These provisions are made in Clause 34. This is one of the provisions which comes out of the "capping the pool "—a shorthand expression—procedures.
It remains true that automatic recoupment for further education remains exactly the same. There is no change in regard to further education under this clause of the

1357
Bill. The recoupment provisions, therefore, for non-advanced further education remain basically unchanged, since there are no changes in the duties of the providing authorities comparable to those in Clause 6(5)(a) concerning compliance with the wishes of parents of children from outside the authority's area in respect of admissions to schools.
I hope that has made the point clear, but if the noble Lord is still concerned about it, I will, if he would like, either write to him or be happy to discuss the matter with him before the Report stage.
Lord MISHCON:I am most grateful for that last indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Next we have to consider Amendment No. 292. The amendments are in the wrong order, and therefore the next amendment before the Committee is Amendment No. 292.
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 30, line 16, after ("education") insert ("or adult education").
The noble Viscount said: This is the first of three amendments put down by my noble friend Lady Seear who, most unfortunately, is unable to be here this day. The first two amendments, Nos. 291 and 293, run together. They have only two points in them. One is that with further education we wish to include adult education. I am afraid that I am not very clear where the line is drawn but I am told that there are categories of education which are properly described as further education and adult education. Our feeling is that the arrangements in this clause which apply to further education ought to apply also to adult education.
The other point is substantially the same point as was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the amendment upon which we recently divided. I do not propose to press this amendment because, in the light of the Committee's decision on
1358
the noble Lord's amendment, obviously we want to think again, and perhaps to think again together, before we come to the Report stage.
I think it is important to do something in this direction. The sort of case to which the noble Lord referred has also been brought to my notice. May I remind the Committee that it is the case of a young man living in one area who goes to another area for an apprenticeship and gets day release, and for his day release courses naturally would like to go to a technical college adjacent or near to the factory where he is doing his apprenticeship. As I see it, unless there is some recoupment provision, the technical college near the factory may say, "No, we will not have this man;he does not come from this area". It seems to me that it would be very unfortunate if this were to be the situation. The area where he is going for his aprenticeship might be miles away from his home. Between now and Report we should like to examine whether or not there is some way in which we could get over what I think is a very real difficulty. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The noble Viscount has not yet moved it.
Viscount SIMON: I apologise. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I hope that I can show to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that in fact his amendment is unnecessary. The effect of it would be that as adult education is part of further education, whatever recoupment provisions apply to further education automatically apply to adult education. In this sense, therefore, his amendment does not add anything to the present situation.
Perhaps in answering the point which he made on the second amendment I might at the same time answer the point that the noble Baroness, Lady David, raised on an earlier amendment about 16 year-olds. It is the same kind of point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is raising and I think the answer is to be perfectly frank and to say that there is an anomaly between 16 year-olds in a secondary school and 16 year-olds in further education, which we recognise There is indeed an

1359
anomaly with the whole group of the 16 to 19 year-olds. As I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, this Bill does not deal with further education and therefore the case raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about the apprentice would be outside the terms of the Bill but if we were to attempt in this Bill to correct the whole of the further education recoupment problems it would be a major undertaking of immense complexity.
At the present time the working party under my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane is in fact looking into the whole question of the 16 to 19 year-olds over a whole range of issues. At present it really is premature to legislate and the truth is that there is no agreement among local education authorities themselves. I hope that that further explanation answers not only the question raised in regard to this amendment but also the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Baroness DAVID: I am glad that the Minister has recognised and admitted the anomaly and I hope that perhaps she will think about how it can be remedied.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope we shall accept that it is an anomaly. For 30 years I have tried to get "free trade "for the 16 to 19 year-olds but the authorities did not agree and there were cogent reasons why they would not agree in certain cases. But I think the case cited by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, would probably be dealt with because in a situation of that kind the student would apply to the local authority for permission to attend the college near his place of work as being much more convenient and one would hope that in such a case the local authority would say that it was entirely reasonable and that they would pay recoupment though they did not have a general agreement.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I may just say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we are of course looking at this matter. That is exactly what the working party under my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane is doing. They are looking at the whole question, along with other matters in connection with the 16 to 19 year-olds. We recognise that it is a prob-
1360
lem and we are hoping to find a solution, but it is not easy.
Viscount SIMON: In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 not moved.]
Lord MISHCONhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 295:
Page 31, line 6, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I shall not move this amendment.
Clause 33 agreed too.
Clause 34 [Education expenditure and rate support grant]:
12.54 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 296:
Page 32, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) The Minister shall not make regulations under section 34 of and Schedule 6 to this Act before he has consulted an Advanced Further Education Commission as set out in subsection (6) below.
(6) An Advanced Further Education Commission shall be set up, consisting of not less than 25 persons whom the Secretary of State shall appoint, after consulting bodies representing local authorities, governing bodies of further education institutions, principals of such institutions, and teachers and students in such institutions.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of some of my noble friends I wish to speak to this amendment. This is an amendment to a clause which deals with the rate support grant which is paid to local authorities in connection with educational matters, and a very substantial amount of this is spent in the field of advanced and further education. Consequently, for a number of years there has been a system of dealing with the allocations to authorities because there has been set up a central pool out of which an allocation is made to the various authorities. In this allocation inevitably one gets a good deal of variation in what takes place. The variation does not depend upon the way

1361
in which the allocation is made but rather upon the way in which the demands are made upon the rate support grant.
The amendment suggests, as we see, that on page 32 at line 7 of the Bill at the end there should be inserted the following two further subsections:
("(5) The Minister shall not make regulations under section 34 of and Schedule 6 to this Act before he has consulted an Advanced Further Education Commission as set out in subsection (6) below.
(6) An Advanced Further Education Commission shall be set up, consisting of not less than 25 persons whom the Secretary of State shall appoint, after consulting bodies representing local authorities, governing bodies of further education institutions, principals of such institutions, and teachers and students in such institutions.").
This has been referred to and in fact the noble Baroness, the Minister, referred to it a few moments ago as the "capping of the pool". That is the proposal which has now been put forward: that the pool should he capped. I regard that expression as a euphemism. It is not so much a capping of the pool as in part an execution and in part the introduction of a drain in order to lower the level of the pool. The consequence is that now throughout the country we have a large number of institutions which are going to suffer a very considerable cut. We are often told that these are not cuts and all that has happened is that the expenditure has been held back to what it was before. But in the case of these institutions this amounts to an actual cut and, if I may give an example of this from an institution with which I am well familiar, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic have been told by the local authority that, in view of this so called "capping of the pool ", they will be expected to cut their estimate for next year by £1·6 million on a present total expenditure which comes to something of the order of £11·5 million. This sum when worked out comes to round about 10 per cent. and in fact if one looks at the average throughout the whole country one sees that it comes to something of the order of 10 per cent. But when it is analysed one finds that about 70 to 80 per cent. of the expenditure of such an institution is expenditure which they cannot possibly reduce. They have no means of reducing it.
For example, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Polytechnic the principal estimates
1362
for next year came to £15·9 million, of which approximately £3 million was not expenditure funded by either the local authority or the State but came in the form of research grants made to the institution by other bodies;therefore it is not a burden on State funds in the ordinary way. But of this total amount of £15·9 million, a sum of £10·6 million goes in salaries, and one cannot reduce the salaries. In fact, whenever there is another award the salaries go up, and there is no conceivable way in which the governing body of the polytechnic can reduce the expenditure on salaries. I am sorry;there is one way, and that is by not filling posts. They have been told by the local authority that they must not create any redundancies but they may avoid filling posts. This, of course, is perfectly possible. No one complains about being asked to do that, unless it is enforced in an absolutely rigid way, in which case any post that falls vacant, however important it may be, may not be filled. That would be ridiculous, but sometimes this is done.
In any case, they estimate that next year of their £10·6 million on salaries they would probably be able to save £400,000 by not filling posts. That falls far short of the 10 per cent. So what have they to do? They look around at other ways in which they can save money. They find they can reduce the expenditure on equipment and furniture from £359,000 to £100,000 by virtually not buying any necessary furniture or equipment next year. Then they look at other things like repairs and alterations to buildings, and they reckon that they can reduce that from £303,000 to £203,000. So it goes on.
In times of emergency one realises that things like this can be done, have to be done. But anyone who can throw his mind back, either to the time of the last war, or back to the year 1931, when there were the May Commission cuts, will realise that what you can do one year without disaster becomes very difficult to do a second year and probably becomes virtually impossible to do a third year. You can stop painting all your buildings;you can do without your plumbing alterations;you can do without a lot of things over a short period. But the longer the period the more disastrous it becomes and the worse the ultimate effect. If I may recollect, I was a young lecturer in the university in 1931, and I remember that

1363
the first thing we had to do was stop purchasing a whole lot of periodicals. This happened to practically every university library in the country. The consequence was that at the end of the last war an enormous application went in to the University Grants Committee from all universities in order to buy back copies of periodicals because they found themselves completely out of a whole lot of them. You can do it for a short time, but the result can be very serious.
The purpose of this amendment is that instead of having an arbitrary way of so-called "capping "—what I would call executing—the pool, I suggest that there should be set up a body which would be able to look at these matters in a much more careful way. That is the proposal, that there should be an advanced further education commission. Such a commission would be in a position, rather like the University Grants Committee, to look at the situation with regard to all the local authorities and their expenditure in the field of further education and be able to make recommendations as to how anything should be dealt with. Having spent 40 years of my life teaching in a university and having been associated for 10 years now with the polytechnic, I would be the last person to suggest that there arc no ways of saving money. There are;there are several ways of saving money. But the way adopted by this sort of method is thoroughly bad;it does not take into account the detailed academic requirements in different places. I am convinced that we would get a better result in carrying out any policy by having a body of this type set up.
One of the things which one must remember about further education and higher education is that continuity in the operation is vital. It is no good swinging from one way to another. It is just as bad to get a sudden expansion, if I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins;a sudden expansion can have as dangerous effects upon any educational system as a sudden contraction. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me on this. The point is that we must have a method of preserving sensible continuity and ensuring that the type of cut which is now being forced upon local authorities, and through them on to
1364
polytechnics and bodies of further education, is seen to be serious and wrong. Therefore, I wish to move this amendment, that an advanced further education commission should be set up. I beg to move.
Baroness DAVID: I should like to add my voice in support of this amendment. The proposals of the Oakes Committee had a good deal of support, although there were some reservations. The national body which is suggested is not exactly like the Oakes proposals in detail, but we feel very strongly that there should be some body comparable to the UGC. I hope that whatever body is set up will have some sort of links with the UGC so that provision of higher education over the country is looked at as a whole and not in two completely separate departments.
Lord BELLWIN: An amendment on the same lines, and with obviously the same intention of preventing the Secretary of State from making regulations relating to the predetermined AFE pool until he has consulted an Oakes type national body, was debated very fully in another place. It was made clear then when the Government came into office that, with the general agreement of the local authorities, a stop had to be put on the completely open-ended nature of the pool for advanced further education. The noble Baroness, Lady David, herself drew attention during the Second Reading of the Bill in this House to the need for this, although I accept that she raised it in a slightly different context, when she quoted from the speech on 20th February to the Association of Principals of Colleges of the Parliamentary Secretary to the DES. He said, the Committee will recall,
"If non-advanced further education had been subject to expenditure restraints while advanced further education remained unrestrained, there would be a clear temptation for the colleges to concentrate on the latter at the expense of the former".
If we had waited for the legislation which would have been needed, as it was in the previous Government's ill-fated Education Bill, for establishing a national body on the lines and with the functions recommended in the Oakes Report, we should still be a long way from capping of the pool, as it has come to be called. The term may not be to everyone's liking

1365
but everyone will now at least know that it is. That has now been done for 1980–81, with the limit of £375 million, subject to the passage of this Bill. It is easy to argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, did, that the capping has been in effect a crude exercise, but speed was essential, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out during Second Reading, the formula used was agreed upon with the local authorities.
The Government are, with their agreement also and the involvement of other interests, moving forward to the use of more refined procedures for the future. For the long term this is not a matter that can be rushed and we must get it right. However, I should emphasise that my colleagues in the DES have an open mind on the question of a national body. They are not for or against it as such, whatever form it may take, but by accepting this amendment as drafted at present I suggest that it would be quite premature to legislate now for any particular form of the body.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said about cuts and the rectitude or otherwise of having a limit in this way. I should like to tell him, from not inconsiderable experience in this area, that it is jolly well about time that we had a limit, and I think that it is very necessary that we should do so.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for interrupting. I did not say that there should be no limit—I certainly did not mean that.
Lord BELLWIN: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was about to comment on his observations in respect of there needing to be or needing not to be cuts in the totality of what is being given to the polytechnics or to advanced further education in this way. In effect, it is the same as saying that there ought or ought not to be a limit, but I shall concede, not in the way that I put it previously.
Baroness DAVID: The point is not that the expenditure should not be looked at and possibly reduced, but the way that the cut is arranged between institutions. We arc objecting to the arbitrary nature and the crude method of making the cuts.
1.13 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I think that I fully understand that point and I wish to deal with it when answering some of the points that were made by the noble Lord. He quoted the instance of Newcastle Polytechnic which I think he said had the problem of how to cut down its expenditure of £15.9 million for the coming year. He said, "There is no way they can reduce expenditure on salaries He then went on to talk about not filling posts. However, that is exactly what we can do and what we must do when the circumstances make it obligatory that we do so.
If we do not accept that there needs to be a cut in that type of expenditure—only because the country cannot afford it and not necessarily because of its basic desirability—then we shall never get anywhere with dealing with inflation. In fact there are many areas in which one can save money. The noble Lord never mentioned the bureaucracy that exists just as much in establishments of further education as in many other such avenues. One of the basic problems in this country is the attempt sometimes to make cuts by trying to cut away at the heart of a service without wishing to cut away the bureaucracy that sustains it.
Therefore, I do not have the slightest concern at all that we should be stressing this point and emphasising it again and again in other places, in the same way as we are doing here—and as I suspect we shall he doing here on many occasions in the future. However, the noble Lord also said that we could do this one year, but we could not go on doing it because in the second year it would become difficult. It is quite true that, as one prunes an organisation, it becomes more difficult to go on doing it each year. However, I could quote authorities to him that have done exactly that for several years and all that they have become is more efficient authorities. If one measures their levels of services, one finds that they can stand up very well with others who may not have done the same. If I seem to be "going on a bit "about this matter, I apologise, but I feel very deeply on this point.
Coming hack to what is proposed in the amendment, I suggest that it is, as I said in my original observations, not before time and indeed very necessary. I think

1367
that the situation can be illustrated by quoting a figure which shows that the £375 million referred to for the coming year is the same level in real terms as was given for the period 1978–79. The general traditional over-estimate—and that is the point, "over-estimate "—by local education authorities in bidding for the pool is some 9 per cent. overall. I can also tell noble Lords, that every year when I used to be responsible for the estimates in the Leeds City Council, one of the first questions that I always asked was: "What do you think we might get back from the pool this year? There was almost invariably an over-estimate. Occasionally we had to wait a couple of years before we knew that figure, but the fact was that there was nearly always a comeback because everyone seems to over-estimate what they will need from the pool. That is the situation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment, otherwise I must ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: It is not a question of any objection to the capping of the pool—I think that that has been generally agreed by the local authorities, by the teachers, and by all concerned—but that it was regarded as part of a package deal that, in addition to the capping of the pool, there would be this Commission which would make sure that the maintained sector of further education did not deteriorate. That is the real point. It should by a body much like the UGC which would do for the maintained sector what the UGC does for the universities. That is all that is being asked—no more. I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the amendment. If they cannot accept it today, perhaps they can undertake to look at it again during the Report stage. It seems to me that there is not a big gap between us. We have accepted that the pool must be capped, but we are saying that there should be this body to look at this particular sector and ensure that, as a consequence of the capping, it does not deteriorate.
Lord BELLWIN: I agree that we are very close on that matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has suggested. I thought I said, and I shall repeat what I thought I said;namely, that I should emphasise that my colleagues
1368
—yes, I did say it—in the DES have an open mind on the question of a national body. I have said it before and I gladly say it again. They are not for or against such a body at present, but we consider that it would be premature at this moment to accept this amendment—which would make it at this moment—to legislate for any particular form of the body. In effect, we are not saying that we should or we should not have such a body: we think that it is a real possibility—indeed, it is more than that;it is a likelihood. However, we want to look closely at the form that it should take so that we get it right. I should not have thought that there was much difference between us so far as that goes.
Lord PITT of HAMSPTEAD: I was suggesting that the Government might look at the matter between now and the Report stage.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has attributed to me certain ideas and remarks. I do not hold those ideas and I do not think that I made those remarks. I certainly did not say—in fact I deliberately said the opposite—that no savings could be made. I pointed out what savings could be made. I pointed out that not all these savings could go on being made year after year. If the noble Lord thinks, as someone who played an important part in a local authority, that it is wise policy not to make repairs to buildings for a number of years—if that is what he meant—then it must have been a very strange local authority that was able to put up with that sort of thing for a period of years. I said that a number of savings could not be made, except on an emergency basis, for one or, at the most, two years, but that there were many areas where savings could be made;and that the purpose of setting up a body, such as this advanced further education commission, would be that it would look at the matter carefully and decide how any restriction should be carried out.
No one who has had anything to do with the field of advanced further education inside polytechnics and bodies like that would for one moment say that every one of them is run perfectly or, indeed, that any one of them is run perfectly. We all agreed that there should be, not an

1369
unrestricted pool, but a pool that was controlled. It is absurd to continue to have an unrestricted pool, although in my opinion it was very good to start them off with an unrestricted pool, otherwise they would never have got their money. However, it seems to me perfectly clear that sooner or later we must set up a commission of this sort.
I accept the statement from the Government Benches that they are thinking about it. Of course, the noble Lord made the remark that they were neither for nor against it, which reminds me a little of the remark about sin, that he was not committed one way or the other. However, it is important that this should not be put aside and simply left to a long-winded, tedious commission to find out whether or not they should set up such a body. I suggest to the Government that it is an important and urgent matter. Hoping that noble Lords on the Benches opposite will accept the urgency of the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Definition and registration of independent schools]:
1.23 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 296A:
Page 32, line 39, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1) of").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will have realised that this is a purely drafting amendment. The mere fact that it is also incredibly boring does not detract from its importance. The burden placed upon the Registrar of Independent Schools to keep a register falls squarely within Section 70(1) of the Education Act 1944. Noble Lords will see that Clause 36(3) refers only to Section 70. The effect of this amendment, of course, will be to put this position right. Noble Lords will also have seen that in Clause 36(3)(b), and in subsections (4), (6) and (7) of Clause 36 the style is entirely consistent with the effect of this amendment which stands in my name. I am merely and respectfully worshipping at the
1370
altar of precision, clarity and consistency of style in drafting. 1 beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has said, this, in fact, is a rather technical drafting amendment, but I understand that although the noble Lord is perfectly correct that the independent schools, whose exemption from the requirement to register is being ended, will be added to the register of independent schools kept by the registrar under Section 70(1) of the 1944 Act, there is nothing to be gained by specifying the subsection as well as the parent clause. There is no other register mentioned elsewhere under Section 70 and, therefore, there cannot possibly be any confusion as to what is meant. I am not a lawyer. I hope that my noble friend will accept this. However, if there is anything further, perhaps he would like to talk to me about it before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord MORRIS: It is always a delight to talk to the noble Baroness, and in view of what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 297:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
"Special education
".—(1) Section 10 of the Education Act 1976 (pupils requiring special educational treatment) shall with the exception of subsection (3) come into force on 1st September 1980.
(2) Subsection (.3) of the said Act is hereby repealed."
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which is tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham of Ilton, and myself. The Committee will remember that Section 10 of the Education Act 1976 was inserted in this Chamber in order to reverse the pre-supposition of the 1944 Act that children in need of special education should be ascertained as being in need of special education, and special education should be required for them. Section 10 reversed that presupposition and said that children who had any kind

1371
of handicap should, wherever possible, he educated in ordinary schools. Since Parliament passed that Act, the Warnock Committee, which was then sitting, has reported and has accepted the substance of what is now the law, although the law is not operative.
In view of the many and very valuable assurances that the noble Baroness on the Front Bench has given us during the course of these debates, I do not wish to move this amendment, but simply to say that we shall be keeping an eagle eye on her to ensure that her enthusiasm for the Warnock Bill remains as high as it now is.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): May I ask the noble Lord whether he would not mind moving the amendment and then withdrawing it.
Lord VAIZEY: I beg to move.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: I should like to speak very briefly and ask the noble Baroness two questions. When the new Bill dealing with special education is introduced, can she assure us that Section 10 will be implemented'? I have not given the noble Baroness notice of my second question, but I should be extremely grateful if she can find out the answer and perhaps write to me before the Report stage. It is something which also cropped up at the same time in the Education Act 1976. It is about amending the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972 and the Further Education Regulations 1975, because during the Report stage of the 1976 Act I withdrew an amendment which tried to ensure that school buildings would be made accessible for the handicapped. This was in order to try to close the loophole which exists in Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I withdrew the amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave me an undertaking that these two regulations would be amended and that design guidance would be issued. Although it is perfectly true that design guidance has, indeed, been issued—and it is a very good booklet—as far as I can discover the regulations have not been amended. If they have not, I wonder why not, and if
1372
there is some difficulty, is there anything that we can do about it in the Bill on Report'? I am very concerned because if the regulations have not been amended, it means that the two episodes which we hailed in 1976 as quite a breakthrough in the education for the handicapped have so far been abortive, because Section 10 has not yet been implemented and the regulations have not been amended. I look forward very much to the reply of the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I might deal first with the second question asked by the noble Baroness. I understand that because of technical difficulties it was not possible to amend the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1972 and the Further Education Regulations 1975 in the way envisaged by the then Government. However, my department has issued guidance on the access of disabled people to educational buildings and I shall write to the noble Baroness about this;should we wish to discuss this before the Report stage, there will be an opportunity to do so.
On the second point raised both by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I think that we have had one very long debate on the whole principle both of Section 10 and the handicapped. I have given all the assurances that I can give about a future Bill. The whole question of Section 10 and all that it implies is something which we shall have to set out in some way in the White Paper, and when the White Paper is published I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness, or some other Member of your Lordships' House, will give the House an opportunity to debate it so that we may take the views of your Lordships' House on this matter. I think this would be a better way of proceeding than to deal with it at this stage in the Bill. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord VAIZEY: We warmly accept the assurances of the noble Baroness and will also take the opportunity, as soon as the White Paper is issued and has been digested, to raise the matter. We can then have a thorough debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for all her help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.31 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY Viscount INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 298:
Insert the following new clause:
" Parental rights regarding sex education
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the head teacher of any school at which sex education is being or will be given—

(a) to give notice in writing of that fact to the parents or guardian of any child to whom sex education is being or will be given;

(b) to explain fully to the parent or guardian the nature of the sex education and to make available all books, visual aids and other material which will or may be used in the sex education;

(c) to give notice of that fact to the governing authority of the school and give them such information relating to the sex education as they may require.

(2) The head teacher of a school shall perform his duties under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above—

(a) in relation to a child who is receiving sex education, as soon as practicable;and

(b) in relation to any other child, at least one month before the sex education begins;

and the head teacher shall perform his duty under paragraph (c) of that subsection as soon as practicable.
(3) After receiving the information specified under one or more of the provisions of subsection 2(1) above, a parent who wishes to withdraw his child from a proposed or existing course of sex education may give notice in writing to that effect to the head teacher, who shall then ensure that the child does not attend the course of sex education.
(4) In this Act "sex education "means any teaching or instruction (by whatever name called and whether or not forming part of another course of teaching or instruction) which is intended to or does transmit knowledge about sexual intercourse between human beings or about their sexual behaviour.".
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, which is similar to one tabled but not discussed in another place by Mr. George Gardiner, the Member for Reigate, I would say that this is an important, sensitive subject best done by parents if they are willing and able to do so, but if it is to be tackled in schools then I feel that parents have a right to know the kind of sex education that it is proposed to give to their children.
The amendment would make it compulsory for the headmaster to inform parents in writing of the nature of the sex education which is to be given. He would explain it fully to them. He would make available the books, visual aids, and so on that
1374
were to be used, and this he would do at least one month in advance of starting the sex education. This would be only making legal what is already the best practice. Then the parent or guardian, if he felt that the kind of sex education proposed would be harmful to his child, would have the right to withdraw his child in the same way as he already has as regards religious education.
A mother living in my own area of North Yorkshire spoke to me recently. She was concerned because in the RE period a young male teacher handed round a questionnaire to her 14-year-old daughter and to the other 14-year-old girls, which said, "Have you had sex with boys?" They got together and decided that they would all answer "Yes "to this question. I submit to your Lordships that this is a very unfortunate happening and one which ought not to be encouraged.
There are certain books circulating which treat sex in an entirely neutral way. I have in mind in particular the one I hold here, Make it Happy, by Jean Cousins. There is a paragraph on page 103 dealing with bestiality which says:
"Some people feel sexually attracted to animals. It is not against the law to kiss, masturbate or be masturbated by an animal".
This book is said by its publishers to be used widely in schools, and has the recommendation on the back of it from Dr. Peter Jackson of the National Council of the Family Planning Association, who says:
"This is a book that should be in every teenager's library".
There are certain pressure groups who are anxious to get in on sex education in schools, such as the Family Planning Association, and another one known as Gay Teachers, who are seeking to get into sex education in schools in order to promote their teaching that homosexuality is both natural and normal. I feel in these circumstances that parents have a right to know what is proposed in this field, and to withdraw their child if they consider it is going to be harmful. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not think we shall speak from this Bench with any sort of united voice. There is no party policy about this. I personally have to say that I am

1375
rather impressed with what the noble Viscount has said. I think that the circulation of books of the kind he referred to, with the quotations he made, is absolutely horrifying. I just want to leave that on record.
1.36 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: I gladly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, and I added my name to it. The Bill is a convenient vehicle in which to introduce this amendment into Parliament, although the Bill generally speaking is concerned with the administration of education rather than its content. Those engaged in sexual education are a mixed bag. Some of them are highly responsible, dedicated people, but, alas, infiltrated from time to time by extremely unpleasant types. We know what infiltration can do. From time to time the repercussions of a scandal, like a jumping cracker, still explode in the public domain, starting with permissiveness at Oxbridge and softness at the Foreign Office, and ending with treason based on sodomy. We know the whole unfortunate history of it, and that is what comes of soft attitudes in Ministries towards undesirable people. I have a word for these: the phthoraphiliacs of this world. That is the same root as was used in the indictment of Socrates for corrupting the youth of his city. Although what followed was judicial murder, the nature of the indictment is still a grave one.
There are people who get a sexual kick in talking about sex to young people and adolescents, and one needs some sort of an assurance that these people are not enfranchised to enjoy their perversion in the context of the schools where we send our children. Of course they never tell the children the whole truth of the matter. They never tell them that sex is part of an enduring relationship, but only part, between two people. They use the deterioration of our language to talk of it in terms of "having sex "as if it were something that you had like a bun or an ice cream, or a drink of beer. They begin and they end with the mechanics of orgasm, no matter how procured. They never tell their clientele what being jilted means to a teenage girl;what being deserted when pregnant means to a
1376
teenage girl;what are the psychological as opposed to the clinical concomitants of abortion;what infection by VD, which is on the increase, means to a teenager.
However, this is neither the time nor the place to go into that at length. We are at the tail end of the Committee stage of a most important Bill which has gone on for many days, and I am concerned only with the right of parents to be assured that the delegation of authority to manage their teenage children's sex education is not handed over to potential perverts.
May I just add a couple of quotations to what my noble friend Lord Ingleby has told you about. I am not exactly sure from whom these come, but from the clique, the ménage, associated with the Brook Advisory Bureau. Whether they are Lady Brook's words or come from some of her hangers-on in the field of sex education, such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, I do not know, but there comes the first quotation:
"Giving parents a choice is dangerous.".
Here is a mother whose body has bowed at the birth of her child, whom she has nurtured as her number one priority for 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 years, and all of a sudden she is to be told that if she manages the sex education of her own child that will be a danger to it. The second quotation reads:
"From birth to death it is now the privilege of the parental State to take major decisions in what is best for the child.".
What sort of plastic-based, chromium-plated, computerised affection do we suppose we shall get out of that kind of parenthood? I am not interested in these dehumanised aspects of what is or what is not convenient. We are sensitive to people's religious needs in the field of education and allow those to be provided for. I do not think we can divorce sex education from religious education;one cannot have sex education given on a secular basis while religious education is being given on a totally different basis. They must not come into conflict.
Therefore, for all those reasons, I support the amendment and beg the noble Baroness the Minister to be sensitive to what we are talking about and not to be, as Ministers easily can be, the impotent tool in the hands of their department. I urge her to take her department by the

1377
scruff of its permissive neck, give it a good shake, make sure it remembers that it is a servant and not a master and that it is there to serve the interests of parents by educating their children and not pushing parents and children around for its own administrative convenience.
1.42 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I apologise to the Committee for intervening, which I have not done before, in the deliberations on the Bill and for doing so on this part of the measure. I do so because about 42 years ago I was one of the founders of the National Marriage Guidance Council in this country. It is true to say that a good deal of the work done in schools in this field today is done under the aegis of the National Marriage Guidance Council, who deal with it, as the noble Earl rightly said, as part of a permanent and enduring relationship. It is because of that, if I may be permitted to say so, that I know the mind of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount on this matter. We met when I was a Minister in the department and discussed various matters, and there was a great deal of common ground between us. However, I am wondering whether the amendment will really deal with the situation. It says:
"It shall be the duty of the head teacher of any school at which sex education is being or will be given "
to do certain things. It says nothing at all—and it cannot say anything at all—about the competence of the headmaster to prepare such a syllabus. We are in a kind of no-man's land which is full of trip-wires and mines when dealing with this subject and trying to condense it into a reasonable amendment which is not too long.
I often question the competence of the people who pretend—" presume "is a better word—to give this instruction, which is often given as sex instruction rather than sex education, and there is a tremendous difference between instruction and education. I believe it can be done only by people who are competent to do it, and your Lordships may ask what I mean by "competent". I mean people who are temperamentally suitable to do it;and let us face it, many of us who are associated with it would not even claim to be tem-
1378
peramentally suitable to do it. They themselves must be tested in some way to see whether they should be let loose on a lot of unsuspecting young people. The divorce rate in this country is now accepted as being in the region of 170,000 a year. I remember in 1939 writing articles for the Press drawing attention to the serious breakdown in marriage and family life because there were 7,000 divorces a year, and we cannot deny that the sex relationship plays some part in it.
On this, the fourth day of the Committee stage, I do not want to go on at length on this subject, but I am wondering whether it would be possible for something to be done between now and Report to see whether the department could, or would, assume some responsibility for preparing some sort of syllabus which would be acceptable to people like the noble Earl and the noble Viscount and others who are very concerned about this question. What we must understand very clearly is that there must be a common syllabus approved by people competent to pass judgment on the validity of the syllabus—to set down the conditions which are necessary—before we let loose a large number of people to undertake this activity, many of whom would not be temperamentally suitable to do it and a large number of whom would not have the competence to do it other than at an instructional, not an educational, level.
We must see very clearly who is to have the responsibility in the schools to do it. Not all teachers—I can say this because I have had to discuss this matter over the years with teachers—want to do it. Many of them have said quite honestly, "I am not competent to do it". It frightens me—this is not a criticism—to think what will happen if we put the onus on a headmaster and he does not feel disposed to do it. What will he do? He will put it on the shoulders of somebody who says, "I will do it ", without questioning that person's competence.
I say honestly to the Minister that I do not know what to suggest. This is something which has defied solution over the years, and I am therefore wondering—the noble Baroness may say it would not be fair to put this on the department—whether she feels that some useful purpose

1379
might be served by talking about this (albeit, it may have to be a superficial discussion) between now and Report to see whether she could come forward with a suggeston as to whether the Department of Education and Science could give some advice and lead in the matter.
I make no suggestion;I must leave it to the noble Earl and the noble Viscount to decide whether to pursue the amendment. However, if it goes in the Bill we shall have established who will do it, whether or not they are competent, whether or not they are temperamentally suited, and we shall have no guarantee that the person concerned, namely, the head teacher, will be able to do it. I should like to see the matter discussed a little more and the provision made a little more watertight.
Lord HYLTON:I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that not all teachers may be suitable persons in this context. However, I think the amendment has slightly more merit than he is prepared to admit. I say that because the amendment protects the rights of parents as well as the rights of governors and managers of schools. Four years ago in a primary school we had an experience of this type with my eldest son. In that case, looking at the amendment, paragraph (a) was not satisfied in that no advance warning was given to parents of the particular lesson; paragraph (b) was not satisfied, about explaining
"fully …the nature of the sex education and …books"
and so on;and paragraph (c) was not satisfied in that the managers of the school, of whom I was one, were not informed. When we complained to the headmaster, he very grudgingly admitted that he had been at fault. I believe that, in the interim, and before we arrive at some perfect state of affairs, the amendment will be very useful and helpful, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel able to accept it.
1.50 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his constructive suggestion, because this is a unique
1380
subject. At the moment religion is the only subject which is dealt with in legislation as part of the syllabus. Sex education has its own special problems, but I do not think that the amendment, as it is at present, will do at all. I start with subsection (4) in my criticism of it. It is true that in a great many schools now much sex education is carried out under other subjects. Whether it be dealt with under religious education, current events, biology, or geography—in dealing with such matters as world population—there is a very wide spread of what may now be called sex education. In some schools, and in some of the best schools, a very great deal of satisfactory sex education is given without the subject ever being taught as such. The proposed clause rightly pays attention to that, but if there is a situation such as I have mentioned, and there is special treatment for a syllabus for all these subjects, it becomes absurd that the matter should have to be treated in a particular way.
I am very attracted to the idea in subsection (1)(c) that the governing authority should have a say in this matter. I am always intrigued by, and on the whole in favour of, the view that syllabus matters should not be entirely the domain of teachers. I know that this is an unpopular thought, not least with teachers, but I believe that there is much to be said for citizens having their say, and the possibility of dealing with the matter through the governing authority is a way forward which we might explore if the noble Baroness accepts the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I emphasise that like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I do not speak for my party on this matter—this is a purely individual suggestion—and I suggest that there is a case for proceeding in the way that the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, has proposed.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: I am sure that all your Lordships are very grateful for the patience of the noble Baroness in sitting this out to the very end. Those of us who wish to support the amendment must be encouraged by the way in which it has been received at this very late stage of a very long week. There has also been cautious encouragement from the noble Lord who has just

1381
spoken and from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has made what I regard as the important point of the difference between instruction and education. I note that in the carefully worded amendment before us the phrase is "sex education". This clause has both positive and negative overtones to it. The fact of giving the children the facts has I believed opened the door to a good deal of unhelpful sexual instruction, because the facts are so hard to describe well. When all is said and done, one could take, as a fairly simple, but rather beautiful, example the violin and violin playing. In that instance one could say that the facts consist of the drawing of the hairs of a horse across the entrails of a pig, and one could I suppose in this way describe the way in which a violin (so to speak) works, yet one would not even be beginning to describe what a violin is in the hands of Yehudi Menuhin, playing a great composition of Mozart's, according to the player's disciplined skill and the patterns of the composer. So in a sense sex education is a very delicate and a very difficult matter even to consider in the way of instruction.
Yet there seems to have been growing up in a number of major debates in your Lordships' Chamber over the past two or three years a certain consensus that we should be helping positively the next generation of boys and girls by trying to ensure that sex education is given in terms of sensitive and unselfish relationships, of real love, of a sacramental expression in love of a lasting relationship, within the continuing discipline and patterns of marriage which I believe, and which I think many noble Lords who may not take a very strong religious stance believe, to be a vital social cohesive force. There must also be considered the actual gift—and I believe it to be a gift, from the early days of man's history —of marriage, as a social and cohesive gift, in addition to the deeper emphasis of Christian marriage with insights of unselfish love and a lasting relationship.
I believe that the clause is not afraid of sex education. That is why I consider it to be a positive one. We have come a long way from the time when people were afraid even to speak about sex education, and when it was very difficult to find young teachers who were able in a sensible, practical and positive way to speak to children about this whole area.
1382
Certainly children in school get plenty of general thoughts on sex, and I believe that we have a certain responsibility to respond in terms of the clause to help the development of our children in every way—both socially and religiously, as well as directly educationally and intellectually.
I am also glad that there is suggested in the clause openness in regard to parents. I know that ideally parents should be the best instructors of their children, but those of us who are parents know that at various stages of the development of our children there are periods when children and parents appear to be on different sides of a fence in relation to sex education. Difficulty is encountered, and one is very glad that there is openness amongst teachers, parents, and children. Since the clause provides that openness, it also makes it possible for sex education to be seen to be given within a truly responsible marriage pattern of lasting relationships, and it avoids the lovelessness and the unhealthiness relating to some of the points which the noble Viscount made. I hope that we give favour and support to the clause.
Lord MONSON: I do not think that anyone who knows me would ever describe me as a puritan—certainly not in matters of this kind. Whenever we have debated in your Lordships' Chamber subjects such as homosexuality, abortion, or censorship I have consistently taken the liberal line—liberal with a small "1 ", that is. I have never been a fan of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, nor, I regret to say, of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, where topics of this nature are concerned. I am certainly not one of those surprisingly numerous people who contend that family planning clinics and family planning associations are clandestine agents of Soviet subversion, whose aim is the undermining of the moral fabric of our society.
Nevertheless, despite all that, I have the most enormous sympathy for the amendment, for two chief reasons. One is that it extends the area of parental choice, which is surely something which we must all earnestly desire. The Conservatives in particular ought to be going all out to support this aspect of the matter, as it is undeniably part of their philosophy.
The second reason is that, although I do not subscribe to the communist con-

1383
spiracy theories, as I have just said, there is no doubt, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, that there does exist within the realm of sex education a small clique who seem to have a crusading zeal to encourage teenage children to start sexual experimentation at a younger and younger age. For that reason, if this amendment is pressed to a Division I shall have no hesitation in going into the Division Lobby in support of it.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I find myself very much in support of the purpose of the amendment, but I walk with the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, on procedure. It seems to me that this is an area very much like religion, and what happened there was the gradual emergence of agreed syllabuses, prepared carefully with appropriate groups of people involved. Frankly, I should have thought that local education authorities and the schools themselves would greatly welcome the emergence of some kind of agreed syllabus in an approach to this problem. If, therefore, the noble Baroness the Minister finds it possible to initiate anything of that kind, I am certain she will have a very great measure of support.
Lord ROBBINS: I confess to some hesitation with regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that this amendment be delayed until an agreed syllabus is devised. I do not deny the desirability of some consensus in this respect, but from my acquaintance with the literature I would have thought that it might be the Greek Kalends until a syllabus acceptable to the majority were elaborated. In the meantime, there are these horrific tendencies, doubtless on the part of a small minority, which are prevalent and of which examples have been quoted this afternoon. To me, the important part of this amendment, which may or may not be capable of legal improvement, is the suggestion that where deliberate sex education is given parents should be advised and should have access to the type of education contemplated. That seems to me to be a subject which brooks no delay.
Baroness GAITSKELL: If I may for a moment intervene on this matter, I am sorry I was not in the Chamber when my
1384
noble friend was speaking. I do not wish to go into any of the details of this, but having thought about sex education all my life and having worked for the Family Planning Association and others, I have long thought that there is one thing that we might still do, and that is have a committee (I do not want to use the word committee ", but an association) of religious leaders, of psychologists—I mean psychologists like a woman called Doctor Wendy Greengross, who was involved in a programme on the radio called, "If you think you have problems ", which went into all these aspects of sexual education for both grown-ups and children—and of teachers. A body of that kind ought to be set up to look into this matter again. I do not think we have come to the end of our thoughts or our feelings about this, because even in this generation, parents are far more ignorant than their children about sex.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With your Lordships' permission I should like to correct one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said;I think he may have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that this matter be deferred or delayed until there had been an agreed syllabus. This is going to take too long. What I did suggest was that perhaps between now and Report stage it might be possible to get from the noble Baroness the Minister some idea of whether the department would be prepared to consider setting up a committee that would deal with the matter quickly with a view to getting a form of agreed syllabus. If the noble Baroness says it cannot be done, then my noble friends could put this amendment down at Report stage.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, with whom I had the misfortune to disagree earlier in Committee, took me a long way down the road of his argument, albeit that I did not share his starting point in religious beliefs;and I felt that his argument was very compelling for the acceptance of this clause, with one very important exception. He described the situation, with which I am sure many of your Lordships will be familiar—the situation especially in adolescents—where the child is, as he put it, on the opposite side of the fence to

1385
the parent; where communication breaks down, perhaps due to no one's faults. In that respect, I for one could not support subsection (3), because it is just at that point, perhaps, when the child and the parent are apart, at which the child needs guidance and instruction by a responsible and dedicated teacher—and, for all that one has heard of horrifying tendencies, I am sure most of your Lordships would agree that the vast majority of teachers go into this area with great responsibility, and many with great dedication. But it is just at that point that I would submit to your Lordships that the parents should not have a total and absolute veto;and on that ground I could not support the new clause.
2.7 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I must regretfully take a contrary view in regard to the right of withdrawal. I am not going to argue that this amendment as it stands is satisfactory. But it has already performed a considerable service. It has elicited a useful debate and I think the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, are particularly worthy of study. Yet the real sanction is the right to withdraw children. That is already the sanction in regard to religious education. There are humanists who will not expose their children to the stories of the birth of Christ just as there are parents who will not expose their children to agnostic or para-Christian interpretations. The parental sanction is, and must be, the right to withdraw.
It would not surprise me if my noble friend the Minister, whose heart is large and warm but who is also a staunch defender of her department and has stood up to the bowling of this Committee in a fabulous way this week—I would not be surprised to find that she brings us an argument presently (I hope I am wrong) to say that it is administratively untidy or inconvenient to school curricula to permit a right of withdrawal. Such an argument is easy to understand, if I may say so with respect, from her permanent advisers, whose integrity of course nobody would call into question. But civil servants and Whitehall generally go for what is convenient, what will save trouble, what does not offend public taste—something continually debased by con-
1386
cessions to it—what I choose to call the easy way out. It will be argued that if you accept the parents' right of withdrawal of their children from sex education or instruction that may crop up in a science course, biology course or even a geography course about aborigines and anthropology, you are upsetting the whole thing. So I should like to address myself to this argument. It is bound to surface sooner or later.
If the right to withdraw is resisted merely on the grounds of the awkwardness that it will cause to the curricula that is saying that the machine of the curriculum is more important than its content. This is what has been said one way or the other over and over again for years: that you must not disturb the running of the machine, the organisation of the transport or whatever it may be. It is always the machinery, the structure, that must not be upset;exceptions are inconvenient. It is the argument—and I hope that it is not going to be used, but I have the fear that it will be—that mere organisational convenience takes precedence over the ethical and moral decencies of civilised living.
Do not let us disguise the significance of the general subject to which we are addressing our minds. This, as has been said from both sides of the committee, is not one of politics, and still less one of administration. It is one of fundamental family decency and in particular it relates to the protection of nature's built-in—and I say "nature's "built-in—sense of shame;the shame that separates us from the animals. And it is family life that nurtures that sense of shame.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Halsbury quoted from the Chairman of the Brook Advisory Centres because I believe that that quotation needs to be repeated. He said:
"From birth to death it is now the privilege of the parental state "—
what a term—the 'parental' state
"to take major decisions on what is best for the child".
That very quotation, and the philosophy implicit in it, goes to the heart of the matter that we are discussing. We know well enough that some agencies, in their endeavours to influence young people

1387
about sex, do divorce sex from love, do ridicule marriage by the rather degrading reference to stable relationships". We have even had that term used by Mr. Patrick Jenkin when applauding one of the publications of the Family Planning Association. The very term is intended to be an insult to marriage as an institution. Some of these influences mean to debase the very instinct to blush. The man who blushes is not quite a brute. And as Jonathan Swift wrote:
"I never wonder to see men wicked—I wonder to see them unashamed".
Anatole France wrote of education:
"An education that does not cultivate the will "—
never mind about organisation and all that;and the will is something that we are talking about in sex education—
"is an education that depraves the mind".
And Ilya Eherenburg wrote not long ago:
"Knowledge has outstripped character development and the young today are given an education rather than an upbringing".
Perhaps the greatest misfortune of our time is that in getting rid of false shame we have killed off so much real shame as well. My fear about the likely handling of this matter between now and Report stage is that there may be a temptation on the part of the administrators—and because of them of the Administration—to resist the right of withdrawal by confusing ends with means.
2.13 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Very often in your Lordships' House we talk about human rights. We are now discussing one of the most fundamental human rights of all and I feel that that is hardly the subject for a quick decision on an amendment which has been before us for a few days. On the other hand, I feel there is a need for a statutory commission to be set up to inquire into the whole question of sex education. It is not a matter to be decided after a few hours' consideration. The right reverend Prelate talked first about sex education and then about playing the violin. In my younger days, I had many lessons in the playing of the violin and I made many public appearances in that capacity. I never had any
1388
lessons about sex education. In fact, in so far as the bulk of the population is concerned, nobody, man or woman, boy or girl, has had any form of instruction on the question of sex. Parents, as a rule, do not instruct their children on the question of sex. Mothers, I know, sometimes tell their girls "Be careful, be careful! But there is no basic instruction in sex for young people.
I think therefore there is something to be said for passing this duty over to the teachers in our schools. But are all those teachers sufficiently responsible to impart the necessary instruction? I remember in my school that there was a master who certainly was not so—and I emphasise that very definitely. On the other hand, in many girls' schools, you have teachers who, in Victorian days, used to be described as "maiden ladies ";and I doubt whether they are properly qualified to impart instruction to their girls. Furthermore, in imparting this instruction in schools, let us bear in mind that there is always some risk to the teacher. One never knows what mischievous boys or girls are going to say about what their teacher said, what their teacher did and what their teacher showed them. It is very risky indeed to give this duty to teachers alone. The school medical officer—and there is a medical officer associated with every school nowadays—should be given the responsibility of imparting this instruction.
The final question that I want to ask is this: at what age does this amendment suggest the instruction should be given? I know that there can be many arguments for raising the age or for bringing the age forward. Personally, I am in favour of bringing the age forward as far as possible. This is such a wide question that I feel that, rather than to attempt to make a decision at this moment after an hour or two of discussion, we should have a statutory inquiry into the whole question of sex education in schools.
2.15 p.m.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Even this debate, short as it is, has shown how complicated is this

1389
subject. Anyone who has taught in, or who has been responsible for running, a school knows that it is one of the most tricky of subjects. Very few subjects on the instructional side, or the practical side, are so linked with the emotions. There are very few subjects in which it is more difficult to find teachers who are really competent to teach.
One may have the greatest sympathy with the objects of this amendment—and I have;because I think some pretty awful things manifestly go on under the name of sex education—yet I think it would be wrong after such a short and superficial consideration to try to write something into this Bill. I think there is an enormous amount to be said. I know that we have had the administrators and such people "shot at ", but there is a very great deal of knowledge and wisdom in the DES. Her Majesty's inspectors must have a very great knowledge of what is actually going on in schools of all kinds regarding sex education.
I would not be quite so pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, about the time it might take. It might take time to get an agreed syllabus. I doubt whether in fact we would ever do that because the type of work done varies more than with many subjects according to the age and background of the pupils. But I think it will be possible to get documents that would be of practical help to those running the schools, whether governors, heads, or teachers in the classroom, if we set up some kind of inquiry into sex education in the world today. As regards the world today, of course it is a platitude to say that it is different, but I sometimes wonder whether we realise how different it is today from the world in which many of us grew up, as regards knowledge and exposure to all kinds of influences, and so on. We all know that.
I should like to support what the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell, and Lord Alexander of Potterhill, have said and ask not that we should pass this amendment—admirable though it is in intention—but that we should call for something more considered in the way of a survey of the field.
2.22 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: The whole Committee will be very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, for putting down this amendment and giving the Committee an opportunity to discuss this subject. It is clearly one of great importance. May I say right at the beginning that I have very great sympathy with the aims of his amendment. I share the views which have been expressed on all sides of the House about the importance of the right kind of sex education. By that I mean that the matter should be treated sensitively. I believe that it should be discussed within a moral code, and those of us who are blessed with a happy family life have so much to be thankful for that the experience of it is something that we ought to pass on to children. I share very much the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, that the book that he described is deplorable, and I do not think it helps children at all. This is my personal view about it and I think it right to say this right away to the Committee.
This is not a political matter nor indeed an issue on which the Government collectively have a view. It is not that kind of a subject. In what I say I hope the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will not feel that I am being a weak Minister. Perhaps I suffer from these defects;but this is a difficult subject and I should like to try and take the noble Earl through the practical problems that there are. Nor do I hope that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale will feel that I am just falling back on administrative convenience, because that is not something in this context which I should like to do.
There is a difference between religious education and any other subject in the school syllabus. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, came to see me and we discussed with him and his colleagues who also put down this amendment their views about it. The difference on religious education is of course that this is the one subject which every school must teach by law one period a week. The school religious education syllabus is based on an agreed syllabus which has been determined under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act locally in consultation with representatives of local interests. Head teachers are indeed already encouraged to

1391
consult and take account of the wider interests of parents and others in sex education. It is quite different from religious education.
If you are a Roman Catholic, a Quaker, a Jew, or someone who does not subscribe to the agreed syllabus, you are entitled to withdraw your child from this one compulsory lesson. Therefore religious education is quite different from other subjects. One of the difficulties about sex education is that in many schools—I do not know how many or whether it is most schools—it does not appear a subject on the timetable. Sometimes it is covered with a general series of lessons on what are called personal relationships. Sometimes it comes up as part of a biology lesson or, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, it comes up under many guises in different lessons. It may come up by way of discussion about some matter in English literature or something like that.
Therefore in the reality of the situation, it would be very difficult for parents to know precisely when this might come up and to withdraw their children if it was not something specifically on the syllabus. However, I have taken a careful note of the wish of a lot of people to follow up Lord Wells-Pestell's suggestion, which was echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Alexander and Lord James and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, that we might be able to go further this afternoon and that I should give an undertaking that either the department would intervene in the formulation of a standard syllabus for sex education or we would set up some working party on it.
I ought to say that this is a matter we would have to consider carefully. I know that is a standard departmental answer. Those who have been in education departments know very well that the British education system is a devolved system in which, whether one likes it or not, education Ministers do not have power to tell schools what they should do, and it rests on the relationship with local authorities and, quite particularly, with the teachers. If it was to be thought that we were laying down a syllabus they would teach, we should find ourselves in difficulties right at the beginning, particularly if it
1392
was a departmental working party, and therefore one would have to look at it very carefully.
I have looked into the question, since I saw the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, about the role of the inspectorate in the matter of sex education. As I understand it, the inspectors might observe, in the course of a school visit, that sex education is being dealt with in a way which most ordinary parents would find offensive: the teacher might, for example, be using books or films which many people could regard as objectionable. The inspector will usually discuss the matter thoroughly with the head teacher. He would want to know whether there had been consultation with the parents of the children concerned. If he was not satisfied with the discussion, it would be open to him to take the matter up with the local education authority. But at the end of the day he cannot prescribe particular books or films himself. That is the position, and I think it right to state what it is.
Under the Bill we have been discussing in the course of this week, the provisions, particularly on school government and the requirement that there should be two parents on a governing body, give an opportunity for parents to find out what schools are doing by way of sex education, and to express a view on it. It has been put to me that a lot of parents would be reluctant to do this because they would feel that if they criticise the school perhaps their children might suffer as a consequence.
I find it sad if this is the case. It has always seemed to me in life that there is never any point of joining a committee of any sort if, when you get there and your opinion is sought, you do not say what you believe to be right in the matter. If you are going to be fearful at the start of it, there is not much point in becoming a school governor at all. It is very necessary to encourage responsible parents to take up these opportunities and take this opportunity of looking at questions such as sex education.
I realise that this falls very far short of what many Members of your Lordships' House have been asking for this afternoon. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby,

1393
will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, because it is something that would be so new and so big, and to attempt to put it into the Bill at this stage would not be conducive either to the sort of thing that he wants to see or indeed, if I have taken the collective feeling of the Committee, that the Committee want to see.
I should like to reflect on this debate and to read it again. If there is some way forward which would be possible, I should like to have the opportunity, perhaps on Report or at a later stage in the course of the year, to discuss this matter. I cannot make any promises at all this afternoon except to consider what has been said, but I hope I have said enough to help your Lordships to realise that I believe this is a matter of great concern and importance to parents and that it is a subject on which parents have a right to full information as to what is going on. I hope that, at any rate within our proposals for school government, parents will take up this right and use it, so that we get the kind of home and school cooperation which we should all like to see, on this matter as on others.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Baroness for her very sympathetic and helpful answer to my noble friends and myself who put down this amendment. I was pleased to hear her recognise the great weight of opinion which was expressed, supporting the principle of this amendment, though I would be the first to recognise that all supporters did not support all parts of the amendment and there were quite a number of qualifications. Nevertheless, there was no doubt that the whole Committee feels that something needs to be done about this matter. I would emphasise the point which the noble Lord, Lord James, made, as ever with his great widsom, that some of us do not realise how much the world has changed in recent years, especially in this respect. if we think back to the 1944 Act—we heard the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminding us yesterday of its origins—we realise that this sort of problem of sex education scarcely existed in those days;but today—my word!—it is with us, and something has to be done to regularise it.
1394
I am sure that, while it is ideal that parents can best take care of sex education in an atmosphere of love and protection in the home, there are undoubtedly many homes where that will not happen, and therefore schools have a "long-stop "responsibility. Something has to be done to ensure that this is done safely, sympathetically and properly in the best possible way. Therefore, while at the end of a very long week of this Committee stage, when the noble Baroness has handled the affairs of the Committee so marvellously well, the last thing my noble friends and I wish to do is to press this matter to a Division now, I think we should say to her that your Lordships would be very concerned if they did not see something included in this Bill before we part with it on Report stage or if we did not get some solid undertaking on rational action that is going to be taken in the future.
The noble Baroness's point that the new constitution of the governors will bring parents on to the governing bodies is a valuable one, but it will not go anywhere near meeting what we are up against. We must deal with the syllabus—I am sure the noble Lords, Lord James and Lord Alexander, are right there—in this immensely sensitive field in a context of devolved education authorities where the noble Baroness, even if she wished to, cannot tell the teachers what they should teach. Therefore I am sure that an agreed syllabus is the right way to go about this. How soon it can be done I do not know;but it is in this spirit of expectancy that I say to my noble friend: "Thank you very much for what you have said ", and it is with a lively sense of favours to come that I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals.]:
The Duke of NORFOLK The Duke of NORFOLK moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 50, leave out line 17.
The noble Duke said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 299.
Baroness YOUNG: The Government accept the amendment.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the amendments.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we have come to the end of a very long week—perhaps the longest and most tiring week in the history of the House of Lords. For that I must apologise to your Lordships because I must accept the responsibility. But it has also been a quite exceptional strain on the staff of the House, and throughout this week they have looked after us, not only without complaining but with constant cheerfulness and never-failing efficiency. I should like, on behalf of your Lordships, to express our gratitude to them.

  "THE OPTICRAFT DISSECTING SET"
  "THE OPTICRAFT DISSECTING SET"
  CANE REFINING IN MERSEYSIDE
  CANE REFINING IN MERSEYSIDE
  NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE: ACCESS
  NORTHERN IRELAND PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE: ACCESS
  DEER WELFARE AND PROTECTION: LEGISLATION
  DEER WELFARE AND PROTECTION: LEGISLATION
  DEER FARMING: MONITORING
  DEER FARMING: MONITORING
  THE WASHINGTON CONVENTION: INFORMATION ABOUT ENFORCEM ENT
  THE WASHINGTON CONVENTION: INFORMATION ABOUT ENFORCEM ENT
  SEXUAL OFFENCES: PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1936
  SEXUAL OFFENCES: PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1936
  ABDUCTION: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DECISION
  ABDUCTION: UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DECISION